Re: [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages

Horms
2006-08-08T06:20:30Z

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:32:23PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.

Ok, I must be confused then. I though CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START was
introduced in order to allow an alternative address to be provided for
kdump, and that previously it was hard-coded to some
architecture-specific value.

What I was really getting as is if it needs to be configurable at
compile time or not. Obviously there needs to be some sane default
regardless.

--
Horms
H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/