Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932434AbWHHESA (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:18:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932479AbWHHESA (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:18:00 -0400 Received: from koto.vergenet.net ([210.128.90.7]:9357 "EHLO koto.vergenet.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932434AbWHHER7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:17:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 12:34:07 +0900 From: Horms To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: vgoyal@in.ibm.com, fastboot@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kratochvil , "H. Peter Anvin" , Magnus Damm , Linda Wang Subject: Re: [RFC] ELF Relocatable x86 and x86_64 bzImages Message-ID: <20060808033405.GA6767@verge.net.au> References: <20060804225611.GG19244@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1592 Lines: 39 On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 05:14:37PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Vivek Goyal writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 04:58:49AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > >> The problem: > >> > >> We can't always run the kernel at 1MB or 2MB, and so people who need > >> different addresses must build multiple kernels. The bzImage format > >> can't even represent loading a kernel at other than it's default address. > >> With kexec on panic now starting to be used by distros having a kernel > >> not running at the default load address is starting to become common. > >> > > Hi Eric, > > > > There seems to be a small anomaly in the current set of patches for i386. > > > > For example if one compiles the kernel with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE=y > > and CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START=0x400000 (4MB) and he uses grub to load > > the kernel then kernel would run from 1MB location. I think user would > > expect it to run from 4MB location. > > Agreed. That is a non-intuitive, and should probably be fixed. 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? -- Horms H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/ W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/