Re: [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages

H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-08T04:32:52Z

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