Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:50:52 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, mingo@kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        ebiederm@redhat.com, bhe@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: kexec reboot fails with extra wbinvd introduced for AME SME
Message-ID: <20180118015052.GB1812@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
References: <20171213025256.GA1913@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20171213155746.GA29572@yu-chen.sh.intel.com>
 <20171214092429.GA2004@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20180104031537.GA1819@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20180117072123.GA1866@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <7d75928d-1aeb-90d6-7053-e26420b11628@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7d75928d-1aeb-90d6-7053-e26420b11628@amd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/17/18 at 09:06am, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 1/17/2018 1:22 AM, Dave Young wrote:
> > [Modify the subject since this is a new problem, original io vector
> > issue has been fixed with one commit from Thomas]
> > 
> > Add more cc according to below old discussion:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/27/574
> > 
> > Tom, I'm not sure why you finally did not dynamically run wbinvd?
> 
> That discussion was aimed at the wbinvd that was being performed
> in arch/x86/kernel/relocate_kernel_64.S, which is dynamically
> run based on a flag.

Oh, I did not notice that, sorry for referring a wrong discussion.

[snip]

Thanks
Dave