Created attachment 1192627 [details] dracut -L4 --debug /boot/initramfs-no-nvme.img Description of problem: On machines with NVME drives, the `nvme` kernel driver is required, but dracut is not configuring my initramfs with this driver. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 044-20.fc24 How reproducible: Unsure Steps to Reproduce: 1. Have an NVME device required for boot (e.g. as the root device) 2. Generate an initramfs using `dracut` 3. Attempt to boot using that initramfs Actual results: An initramfs not containing the nvme driver required for my root device. (verified by `lsinitrd`) Expected results: An initramfs containing nvme, as I have such a device. Additional info: I upgraded to dracut 044-20.fc24 on 07/23/16, and kernel 4.6.5 on 08/09/16. Kernel 4.6.5 continued to work as expected, implying that dracut successfully configured my kernel. I then upgraded to systemd-udev-229-12.fc24 on 08/12/16, and finally kernel 4.6.6 on 08/16/16. Kernel 4.6.6 did not successfully boot. /etc/dracut.conf.d/10-nvidia-modesetting.conf ``` # Use NVIDIA KMS drivers+=" nvidia nvidia_kms nvidia_uvm nvidia_drm " ``` A workaround is to add the following file /etc/dracut.conf.d/0-nvme.conf ``` drivers+=" nvme " ``` Attached files: dracut-no-nvme.log: `dracut -L4 --debug /boot/initramfs-no-nvme.img` not using 0-nvme.conf above
please use add_driver+=" nvidia nvidia_kms nvidia_uvm nvidia_drm " or add_drivers+=" nvme "
So... I conceptually see what went wrong here, and I'll probably never make that mistake again, but am I wrong in thinking that the syntax of the += operator here **strongly** implies that I'm adding a driver to the initramfs and not that I'm specifying an exclusive list of drivers (revealed by the man page, but it's easy enough to miss that detail, like I did the first time) `drivers+=" foobar "` seems to say "add foobar to the list of drivers" and not "nix every other driver but foobar" If it was called `drivers_override`, then it wouldn't be confusing to me. Ah well, I suppose it can never be changed because of breakage. I'm not an inexperienced Fedora/Linux user and I just toasted my system, requiring a couple of hours of debugging, because of config file semantics. Thanks for the tip Harald.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 24 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 2 (two) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 24. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '24'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 24 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 24 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2017-08-08. Fedora 24 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.