Re: [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages

[H. Peter Anvin]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/