On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 02:27:39PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 02:23:57PM +0200, almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch wrote:
> > I don't see the advantage over Alan's proposal of simply adding the
> > config data to the bzImage or whatever is the most common format on
> > the respective platform. You still have the same fundamental problem
> > to solve (i.e. accessing the file), plus you may need to extend the
> > boot loader(s) to support a new format ...
>
> I just don't see much advantage in a bzImage anymore, given the disk sizes
> of modern computers. For kernel debugging I prefer to have an unpacked
> vmlinux with symbol table. Would it be that hard to make lilo support unpacked,
> unmangled ELF kernels ?
it certainly isn't too hard for other architectures' boot loaders. I think
it'd definitely be a win to make more of the boot process architecture-
independent, and ELF takes care of word-size and endianness issues nicely.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 14:24:59 EDT