On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 17:44:09 Tetsuya Isaki wrote: > At Sat, 5 Apr 2025 22:01:37 +1100, > > Nat Sloss wrote: > > Following advice and following the spirit of my intentions adding nop in > > the switch i added nops before "rte" in locore.s in sys/mac68k as > > opposed to m68k/swicher. > > Are you sure? > > First, errata E4 said the workaround is "nop-before-f-line", > Somehow, what you wrote was "nop-before-rts" (in the kernel). > I've also pointed it out. > > Next you claimed that as if these rts instructions returned the > flow to the userland directly... (Of course not) > So I've just pointed out that the rts is not what you imagined. > In the first place, "nop-before-rts" is already your fiction. > > > If I believe this E4 text, no kernel patch should be necessary > for this issue, as Martin alreadly said. > --- > Tetsuya Isaki <is...@pastel-flower.jp / is...@netbsd.org>
nop - f* instructions are not atomic....what will happen if nop is executed and then the processor is interrupted (by say pressing a keystroke on the keyboard) then after that interrupt has run the f* instruction is executed. How should this be handled? Nat
