Re: rng padlock changes causes NetBSD to crash

2017-02-16 Thread Andrius V
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

Re: rng padlock changes causes NetBSD to crash

2017-02-16 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
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

Re: rng padlock changes causes NetBSD to crash

2017-02-16 Thread Andrius V
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

Re: rng padlock changes causes NetBSD to crash

2017-02-15 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
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

rng padlock changes causes NetBSD to crash

2017-02-15 Thread Andrius V
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),