[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1387d9b8-0e08-a22e-6dd1-4b7ea58567b3@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:52:47 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Jack Wang <jack.wang.usish@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 067/306] KVM: nVMX: move check_vmentry_postreqs()
call to nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode()
On 03/12/19 13:27, Jack Wang wrote:
>>> Should we simply revert the patch, maybe also
>>> 9fe573d539a8 ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS")
>>>
>>> Both of them are from one big patchset:
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10616179/
>>>
>>> Revert both patches recover the regression I see on kvm-unit-tests.
>> Greg already included the patches that the bot missed, so it's okay.
>>
>> Paolo
>>
> Sorry, I think I gave wrong information initially, it's 9fe573d539a8
> ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS")
> which caused regression.
>
> Should we revert or there's following up fix we should backport?
Hmm, let's revert all four. This one, the two follow-ups and 9fe573d539a8.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists