At 3:58 PM -0400 5/24/07, Jarod Wilson wrote: >Tony Nelson wrote: >> At 2:55 PM -0400 5/24/07, Jarod Wilson wrote: >>> Jarod Wilson wrote: >>>> Okay, fc6 mdraid to f7 upgrading via anaconda works for me now. >>>> >>>>> Once that's done, I'll see what I can do to see if the kernel option >>>>> libata.ignore_hpa can be used to help those who don't really wanna >>>>> nuke their entire system to move from FC6 to F7. >>>> Starting in on this right now... >>> Got the problem reproducing, but... >>> >>> Unknown boot option 'libata.ignore_hpa=1': ignoring >>> >>> Talked to davej, module parameters can't be passed on the command line >>> just yet. So anyone with an FC6 system that uses part of the host >>> protected area is currently not able to upgrade to F7 using anaconda >>> (FC6 to F7 can be done with some modprobe.conf magic and upgrading via >>> yum though). >>> >>> davej is going to poke some folks who were working on a patch to allow >>> module parameters to be passed on the kernel command line. >> >> Well, this keeps me from upgrading to F7! > >Not entirely. You can put the following into /etc/modprobe.conf: > >options libata libata.ignore_hpa=1 > >Then upgrade via yum. Sub-optimal for those who prefer to upgrade via >anaconda, but its an option. I might do that. >> How serious a problem results from doing an installer upgrade from FCx to >> F7, no repartitioning? Is it going to cause massive data loss for >> unsuspecting users, or does the Anaconda notice and stop the process? > >Warning > >The partition table on device sdX was unreadable. To create new >partitions it must be initialized, causing the loss of ALL DATA on this >drive. > >This operation will override any previous installation choices about >which drives to ignore. > >Would you like to initialize this drive, erasing ALL DATA > >No(selected by default) Yes This is good enough, though an unwelcome surprise for someone who would have just downloaded 4 GiB of data. Since the kernel automatically temporarily disables the HPA it might be very common. >> Would a respin be needed to get the installer to work for them (me) >> (assuming they recovered from the first upgrade attempt)? > >At this point in time, its way too late in the game to get a fix into >anaconda, so yes, either a respin or possibly an updates.img as Jesse >suggested would be the only way to get anaconda-based upgrades working >in this situation. What I thought. >The initial thought is that we'll have to patch both anaconda and >modprobe to be able to recognize and apply kernel module options passed >on the kernel command line. I'll be filing bugs against both >module-init-tools and anaconda shortly. Never say never, but getting a >fix in for the F7 release is highly, highly, highly unlikely. What I thought. I see by the later posts that a solution may have been found. >Ah, just noticed the email in this thread from Bruno... Could be some >way to deep-six the hpa area within FC6 before upgrading... (and >personal experience would suggest this can be done somehow -- I had a >drive that used to have the hpa issue and now doesn't -- but I know not >the magic incantation). It's apparantly fairly simple; it's what the kernel normally does with a flag set to say "permanent" rather than "temporary". -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
