Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#28632 - activating swap fails under util-linux 2.21-1
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Hussam Al-Tayeb (hussam) - Friday, 24 February 2012, 18:48 GMT
Last edited by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Saturday, 25 February 2012, 13:27 GMT
Opened by Hussam Al-Tayeb (hussam) - Friday, 24 February 2012, 18:48 GMT
Last edited by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Saturday, 25 February 2012, 13:27 GMT
|
Detailsactivating swap at boot fails with util-linux 2.21-1
however free commands shows the swap was actually activated. This worked in 2.20 rolling back mkinitcpio and util-linux to 2.20 (and regenrating boot image fix it) |
This task depends upon
Closed by Tom Gundersen (tomegun)
Saturday, 25 February 2012, 13:27 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: by util-linux-2.21-2
Saturday, 25 February 2012, 13:27 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: by util-linux-2.21-2
Anyway, before the update it didn't say failed. after the update, it says failed although swap gets activated. rolling back makes it succeed again. In both cases, swap is getting activated.
outputs nothing.
cat /etc/fstab
#
# /etc/fstab: static file system information
#
# <file system> <dir> <type> <options> <dump> <pass>
tmpfs /tmp tmpfs nodev,nosuid 0 0
/dev/mapper/root / ext4 defaults,user_xattr 0 1
/dev/sda1 /boot ext4 defaults,user_xattr 0 1
/dev/sda2 none swap defaults 0 0
/dev/mapper/home /home ext4 defaults,user_xattr 0 1
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/2012-February/002494.html
Yes, it was the mount and not swapon. I must be getting too old ;)
Thank you very much :)