On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Manuel Bouyer wrote:

> why does it ignores the second request ?

I wish I knew. Guessing, I would say it's a bug in my portmap, but I can't
get the #@%@^ thing to produce any debugging output. But since I now know
there are _supposed_ to be two bootparam calls, that points more directly
to the portmapper. My problem was mostly that I wasn't sure where the
problem was. So I'll try recompiling portmap and like and then if that
doesn't work I'll come back and bother everyone again. :)

> > thing. But I don't get why it's asking for bootparam a second time, when it
> > will just be the same thing, and why it thinks the NFS mount has failed,
> > when it's already mounted that partition, in order to get the kernel!
>
> These are different things: one if the boot loader, which mounts the
> filesystem to load the kernel, and the other is the kernel trying to
> mount root: different programs, so the kernel has to do the bootparam
> dance too to get the parameters, and then mount root for itself

Makes sense. I had just assumed the boot loader would pass information like
that on to the kernel when it started it.

> (at this point the first mount doesn't exist any more because the boot
> program doesn't exists any more).

Oh... it umounts it? OK, things are starting to make more sense now.

> No, bootparamd returning 10.0.0.1 is OK.

OK, thanks. That's one less thing to worry about, anyway.

-Jack