[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I had the same with this .config from 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 after running 'make > oldconfig' and answering N to all new questions. Then, I tweaked some > items, mostly to see if there was an 'align kernel' item in there > somewhere. Diff between _working_ 2.6.21-rc5-mm3 .config and this > 2.6.21-rc3-mm2 .config at the end. Somehow that seems to have adapted > 'CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START', maybe that's it?
That looks like it. Does anyone know how to express the constraint of a 2M aligned number in Kconfig? The original plan was to remove CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START and CONFIG_RELOCATABLE on x86_64 because after this series they have no cost and thus just lead to a little more confusion. However because we don't tag vmlinux as ET_DYN and Xen has some use for kernel built at different physical addresses (or at least loaded at them), and because Xen directly loads vmlinux he kept those options. If we can find a place to stick it into the build doing a little post processing of vmlinux so that it has the proper ELF header type (ET_DYN not ET_EXEC) would be useful and allow us to remove those extra confusing options. If I have a spare moment I will take a look. Since there is confusion it is probably worth removing the unnecessary confusing options if we can instead of supporting the full confusion. Doing the same for i386 would be a little harder but with Dave Miller's suggestions for Xen and leaving the functions to be replaced unlinked so the compiler generates efficient calls and then doing linking magic to fill in the pieces at boot looks about as tricky as moving the relocation logic for i386 into vmlinux as well. So it seems feasible and possibly worth doing. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
