[arch-general] Getting freeze on early start with linux 4.9-1 kernel.

[Mauro Santos]

On 23-12-2016 13:58, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 1:59 PM, fredbezies via arch-general
> <arch-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> I'm facing an annoying bug with linux 4.9-1 kernel on my 6 or 7 years
>> old Toshiba Laptop. When I try to make it boot on with linux 4.9-1
>> kernel, it freeze right after loading initramfs.
>>
>> 4.8.xx kernel was working flawlessly. My eeePC (nearly 9 years old)
>> and my desktop computer (which is AMD based) are both starting with
>> linux 4.9.
>>
>> I opened a bug : https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52246
>>
>> Here is my lspci. If someone can help me finding what is happening,
>> I'll be very happy :
>>
>> 00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 4 Series Chipset Memory
>> Controller Hub (rev 07)
>> 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 4 Series
>> Chipset Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 07)
>> 00:02.1 Display controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 4 Series Chipset
>> Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 07)
>> 00:1a.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB
>> UHCI Controller #4 (rev 03)
>> 00:1a.1 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB
>> UHCI Controller #5 (rev 03)
>> 00:1a.7 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB2
>> EHCI Controller #2 (rev 03)
>> 00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) HD Audio
>> Controller (rev 03)
>> 00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) PCI Express
>> Port 1 (rev 03)
>> 00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) PCI Express
>> Port 2 (rev 03)
>> 00:1c.4 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) PCI Express
>> Port 5 (rev 03)
>> 00:1d.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB
>> UHCI Controller #1 (rev 03)
>> 00:1d.1 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB
>> UHCI Controller #2 (rev 03)
>> 00:1d.2 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB
>> UHCI Controller #3 (rev 03)
>> 00:1d.3 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB
>> UHCI Controller #6 (rev 03)
>> 00:1d.7 USB controller: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) USB2
>> EHCI Controller #1 (rev 03)
>> 00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 Mobile PCI Bridge (rev 93)
>> 00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation ICH9M LPC Interface Controller (rev 03)
>> 00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 82801IBM/IEM
>> (ICH9M/ICH9M-E) 4 port SATA Controller [AHCI mode] (rev 03)
>> 00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) SMBus Controller (rev 03)
>> 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd.
>> RTL8101/2/6E PCI Express Fast/Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02)
>> 03:00.0 Ethernet controller: Qualcomm Atheros AR242x / AR542x Wireless
>> Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01)
> 
> Does the fallback boot entry work?
> 
> Have you tried reinstalling the kernel?
> 
> I wish arch would (like other distros) keep 2 or three old kernel
> versions around because it doesn't take any space to do so
> and works around boot bugs in new kernels.
> 

Care to explain how "doesn't take any space" works? Last time I checked
files do take up space. There is an LTS kernel in the repos, which you
can have installed exactly for things like this.

There is also the matter of automagic bootloader configuration change to
support that, not to mention people that use efistub to boot their
system, how do you propose to handle that?

> If this is a regression you will have to post dmesg. If you don't see
> errors/warnings, then kernel developers would usually ask to enable
> debug flags for printing more information during boot.
> 
> That said, I have one old machine with a Core2Duo and GM4xx and
> ever since DRM's atomic modesetting was introduced in 4.2, I can
> only use 4.1 warning free. Regressions do happen but you had no
> warnings or errors in 4.8 so yours looks like a different regression.
> 

If you don't report the bugs upstream they don't get fixed, if you have
reported it and no one got around to take a look at it then fine,
otherwise don't be lazy and report those bugs and help get them fixed.

-- 
Mauro Santos