Yes, I've read that padlock design is not elegant at all and true, I
don't think so that we will see it redesigned anymore... Though I
didn't expect that it might be any difference between i386 and amd64
kernels but after your explanation it makes sense. I have a bit more
limited access to nano dev
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:04:33PM +0200, Andrius V wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have tested the fix. lcr4(rcr4() | CR4_OSFXSR); helps indeed and
> system boots but if statement seems to be not correct, at least on
> VT-310DP board it ended up in the same error.
I checked in an unconditional version of th
Hi,
I have tested the fix. lcr4(rcr4() | CR4_OSFXSR); helps indeed and
system boots but if statement seems to be not correct, at least on
VT-310DP board it ended up in the same error.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:25:36AM +0200, Andrius
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:25:36AM +0200, Andrius V wrote:
>
> Crash looks like this:
>
> cpu_rng: VIA
> fatal privileged instruction fault in supervisor mode
> trap type 0 code 0 eip c0132377 cs 8 eflags 10046 cr2 0 ilevel 8 esp 80050033
> curlwp 0xc12427e0 pid 0 lid 1 lowest kstack 0xc14d82c0
>
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:25:36AM +0200, Andrius V wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have recently decided to test changes in this commit
> https://mail-archive.com/source-changes@netbsd.org/msg64898.html.
> Unfortunately NetBSD (i386) crashes on boot in all systems I have
> tried with which includes VIA VT-
Hello,
I have recently decided to test changes in this commit
https://mail-archive.com/source-changes@netbsd.org/msg64898.html.
Unfortunately NetBSD (i386) crashes on boot in all systems I have
tried with which includes VIA VT-310DP (two C5P based Eden-N 1GHz
CPUs), EPIA-M900 (Nano X2 1.6GHz), Jet
