Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 439695
missing "No suspend signature on swap, not resuming."
Last modified: 2008-04-03 21:05:27 EDT
Description of problem: Console messages during boot say "Trying to resume from <device>" but there is no comment when the attempt fails. Fedora 8 says "No suspend signature on swap, not resuming" to indicate cold boot (non-resume.) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): initscripts-8.67-1.x86_64 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. cold boot via grub from usual ext3 partition. 2. 3. Actual results: VGA Console messages: Trying to resume from /sys/block/sda//sda5 ## 1st swap partition ## no indication of failure Expected results: Trying to resume from /sys/block/sda//sda5 ## 1st swap partition No suspend signature on swap, not resuming. ## indication of no resume Additional info: kernel-2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9.x86_64 but the problem occurs with all other f9-Beta kernels, too.
Can you unpack the initrd (zcat /boot/initrd* |cpio -id) and grab the /init script out and attach it here?
Created attachment 299637 [details] /init from initrd-2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9.x86_64.img zcat /boot/initrd-2.6.25-0.172.rc7.git4.fc9.x86_64.img | cpio -id ## then "./init"
initrd-2.6.25-0.121.rc5.git4.fc9.img was much the same: # diff -u init.121 init.172 --- init.121 2008-03-30 12:41:45.000000000 -0700 +++ init.172 2008-03-30 12:42:26.000000000 -0700 @@ -67,9 +67,9 @@ modprobe scsi_wait_scan rmmod scsi_wait_scan mkblkdevs -resume /sys/block/sdb//sdb5 +resume /sys/block/sda//sda5 echo Creating root device. -mkrootdev -t ext3 -o defaults,ro /dev/sdc6 +mkrootdev -t ext3 -o defaults,ro /dev/sdb6 echo Mounting root filesystem. mount /sysroot echo Setting up other filesystems.
I can duplicate this issue, although I get the error on a command like: resume /sys/block/dm-3 If I extract the init script from a kernel build with an earlier version of mkinitrd which didn't have this problem, I see something like: resume /dev/mapper/Volume00-swap which does resume correctly which seems to suggest that this seems to be the same or similar issue as bug #438951 (should that bug be marked as dupe of this one?)
Bumping severity a bit, this is a major regression IMHO.
this looks like a duplicate of bug #438583
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 438951 ***