[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:32:23 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Horms <horms@...ge.net.au>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, vgoyal@...ibm.com,
fastboot@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Kratochvil <lace@...kratochvil.net>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Linda Wang <lwang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages
Horms wrote:
>
> I also agree that it is non-intitive. But I wonder if a cleaner
> fix would be to remove CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START all together. Isn't
> it just a work around for the kernel not being relocatable, or
> are there uses for it that relocation can't replace?
>
Yes, booting with the 2^n existing bootloaders.
Relocation, as far as I've understood this patch, refers to loaded
address, not runtime address.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists