On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:48:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 10 September 2012, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 10 September 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 06:53:39AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > I think a bunch of other architectures can have relocatable kernels, which > > > is useful e.g. for kdump. It does imply a small runtime cost and may have > > > other disadvantages though. > > > > Relocatable in physical space is what kdump actually needs, and that's > > what we already have here (as well as on ARM32 for that matter with > > CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT). Relocatable in the virtual space is costly > > and we shouldn't need to go there. > > Ah, I see. I thought that the other architectures (powerpc and x86) > doing this were actually building with -fPIC, but they do the same > kind of early patching that we do. On arm64 I don't have run-time code patching (yet) but a PHYS_OFFSET variable set at boot time. It may prove useful to have run-time code patching but that's just an optimisation that can be added later. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
