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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191127203114.766709977@linuxfoundation.org> <20191127203119.676489279@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CA+res+QKCAn8PsSgbkqXNAF0Ov5pOkj=732=M5seWj+-JFQOwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191202145105.GA571975@kroah.com> <bccbfccd-0e96-29c3-b2ba-2b1800364b08@redhat.com>
 <CA+res+SffBsmmeEBYfoDwyLHvL8nqW+O=ZKedWCxccmQ9X6itA@mail.gmail.com> <828cf8b7-11ac-e707-57b6-cb598cc37f1b@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <828cf8b7-11ac-e707-57b6-cb598cc37f1b@redhat.com>
From:   Jack Wang <jack.wang.usish@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:27:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+res+Qo1mX_UFEqDD+sm80PZeW4bRN8VZeNudMDaQ=5-Ss=0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 067/306] KVM: nVMX: move check_vmentry_postreqs()
 call to nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode()
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

snip
> >
> > 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?

Thanks,
Jack