Description of problem: There is a &%#^%$ HP #&$^* NetServer E800 which I have to install FC5 on. Installation process hangs during (or just after?) video system probe: Running anaconda, the Fedora ...... Probing for video card: ATI Technologies Inc Rage XL Probing for monitor type: Unknown monitor BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, anaconda/569 lock: c040d32c, .magic: 00000000, .owner: <none>/-1, .owner_cpu: 0 Well, maybe this a kernel (or even hadrware) problem, rather than anaconda one, I am just in doubt. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora Core 5 CD#1 (first disc in installation pack), made from original iso image. How reproducible: 100%. I have tried to workaraound it giving various options (in various combiinations): noprobe skipddc text nosmp Steps to Reproduce: 1. Get a fscken HP damned NetServer E800 2. Insert Fedora Core 5 disk #1 3. Launch the installation process Actual results: The installation process stops and the system becomes stuck (see the diagnostic above) Expected results: The process should in result in working Fedora Core 5 system. Additional info: Rescue disk from the same Fedora Core 5 CD pack works fine. I suppose it's due to it doesn't try to probe the video subsystem.
It looks like this is not an anaconda bug, it appears to be a kernel/hardware bug. After a day of monkeying with kernel options I have found a workaround (quite standard, though): acpi=off So I guess, the bug report should be redirected to kernel developers.
More details: After installation the kernel without `acpi=off' option starts quite fine and the system startup curve goes well till cups. On starting the cups daemon kernel panics. Amongst lots of printed symbols there surely are `spin' related ones, so I think that's the same `spinlock' issue. The `acpi=off' kernel option does fix the problem.
A new kernel update has been released (Version: 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5) based upon a new upstream kernel release. Please retest against this new kernel, as a large number of patches go into each upstream release, possibly including changes that may address this problem. This bug has been placed in NEEDINFO state. Due to the large volume of inactive bugs in bugzilla, if this bug is still in this state in two weeks time, it will be closed. Should this bug still be relevant after this period, the reporter can reopen the bug at any time. Any other users on the Cc: list of this bug can request that the bug be reopened by adding a comment to the bug. In the last few updates, some users upgrading from FC4->FC5 have reported that installing a kernel update has left their systems unbootable. If you have been affected by this problem please check you only have one version of device-mapper & lvm2 installed. See bug 207474 for further details. If this bug is a problem preventing you from installing the release this version is filed against, please see bug 169613. If this bug has been fixed, but you are now experiencing a different problem, please file a separate bug for the new problem. Thank you.
I just have tried the 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5. The bug is still there: without acpi=off kernel panics on HAL daemon start (while probing serial ports). The acpi=off workaround helps.
can you capture the panic from the latest kernel and dump that here ? (even a digital photograph will be fine if you have access to a camera) if the panic makes info scroll off the top of the screen, booting with vga=1 will fit more lines of text on the screen. Also, do you have any 3rd party modules installed ?
I've shot it. See http://Bolizm.ihep.su/photo/192979/. There are no 3rd party modules installed. BTW, vga=1 doesn't help as initscripts load console font of default size. If you need the real dump (kernel-kdump or a serial console log?) it will take more time.
The bug is still there in FC6 stock kernel (2.6.18-1.2798.fc6.i586).
It looks like the bug is absent in kernel-2.6.18-1.2849.fc6.i586 (no kernel panic had occured during the whole runtime). I just have switched from it to the new kernel-2.6.18-1.2868.fc6.i586, shall watch it for a while too.
Both 2.6.18-1.2868.fc6.i586 and 2.6.18-1.2869.fc6.i586 appear to be OK. BTW, why the FC6 installation scripts have installed the i586.rpm package while the CPU has been Pentium III (Coppermine)? Can/should I manually replace it by the i686.rpm package? Maybe the i686.rpm would be more adequate for the PIII CPU?
Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks. If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6, please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle/EOL If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting the change. Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we are following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again. And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
> > We strongly encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. > To my regret I cannot upgrade to a later Fedora release as since Fedora 7 PATA disks are always treated as SCSI via ide-scsi emulation and SCSI disks cannot contain more than 15 partitions, while I do have more than twenty of them. It seems I would have to change Linux distribution.
Thanks for your update