The genkernel initramfs uses mdstart to mount a mirrored root. Unfortunately, genkernel-next revision 35 does not include any file named mdstart in the initramfs causing the boot to fail. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. genkernel --install --no-ramdisk-modules --mdadm initramfs 2. reboot 3. fail! Actual Results: The init script calls "mdstart" which fails with "not found" causing root not to be mounted. Using the debug option, I have determined that the initramfs created does not contain mdstart. If I look in /usr/share/genkernel/patches/, I can see busybox-1.20.1-mdstart.patch, a patch to busybox to add mdstart. However, this doesn't seem to be used Expected Results: mdstart should be built using the patch included in genkernel. Tested with genkernel-next revision 35 and busybox 1.21.0. I also tried with busybox 1.20.2 but nothing changed. busybox-1.20.1 seems to not be in portage
I believe that the mdstart codepath is an old heritage and nowadays mdadm does all the device nodes magic for you. However, I guess that --no-ramdisk-modules prevents mdadm from working correctly, why are you using that option? Can you try without it and see if it works? Then I'll be able to figure out if the mdstart cruft should be removed.
--no-ramdisk-modules comes from initramfs howto: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO However, i've done it without this option and it makes no difference. As it should be. In my kernel there no loadable modules. Booting with the debug option, I can even run mdadm --assemble manually and it works.
What is your kernel boot command line? Does it have "domdadm" ?
I tried domadm before but I think the result may have been obscured by another error. Adding domam does seem to get past the problem. Thanks. I now have: root=/dev/md22 init=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd resume=swap:/dev/md5 rootfstype=ext4 crashkernel=128M domdadm What is domdam for? I have seen several references that one might want to use domdadm but nothing that expresses what the option is supposed to do and why it would make sense to use it. It this case, it seems to direct flow away from an area that is broken.
is this still valid with version 63?
