ext3 compiled-in vs module in FC4

[Tim Taranov]

could be that I've fat fingered something while rebuilding kernel for
my raid controller (I had to do this to get fc4 to recognize it and
boot from it). I was just suprised to find that other people were also
having similar issue and having ext3 compiled-in helped (and it help
me). I didn't spend much time digging in this - as soon as I got my
stuff working, I pretty much forgot about it - that is until I
discovered this mailing list.

On 5/23/05, James W. Bennett <silverhead at comcast.net> wrote:
> Tim Taranov wrote:
> 
> >I thougt so too, howevever double, triple checking everything wasn't helping.
> >
> >Then I found some threads somewhere on google about the same problem
> >and they all were coming having ext3 compiled-in. When I did this -
> >the boot issue went away.
> >
> >On 5/23/05, Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 03:33:33PM -0400, Tim Taranov wrote:
> >> > Hi -
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering why FC4 has ext3 as a kernel module rather than having
> >> > it  compiled into the kernel?
> >> >
> >> > The reason I'm asking is because I encountered an issue with booting
> >> > FC4 from a raid volume with ext3 compiled as a module (the default
> >> > configuration) - the kernel would panic after not being able to mount
> >> > /. After I rebuilt the kernel to have the ext3 compiled-into the
> >> > kernel, the booting problem went away (my /boot and / are ext3-based,
> >> > running off a h/w raid controller based volume).
> >> >
> >> > I was using the default FC4 test 3 at the time - I haven't tried it
> >> > with the latest kernel, but I suspect the results may be the same.
> >>
> >>If your initrd is made correctly, it shouldn't matter which way
> >>its built.
> >>
> >>               Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> I am using FC4 test3 and I compiled kernel 2.6.11.10 and ext3 as a
> modules and I have no problems.  It boots   clean everytime.
>