Should I send that missing patch? Rework the set? Do a cleanup after you check in? I appreciate all the work that you've done, and I'd like to do whatever makes the most sense to move forward. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 14/02/2017 23:17, Jim Mattson wrote: >> Yikes! Did I forget to include "kvm: nVMX: Set nested_run_pending >> before prepare_vmcs02()"? Sorry. That obviates the need for >> "from_vmentry," and is a little less awkward, I think. (The problem is >> that kvm can exit to userspace with vmx->nested.nested_run_pending >> set. If VMX state is saved at that time, then the restore code has to >> behave as if "from_vmentry" is true. In any event, your version looks >> fine, and I can always clean it up later (or not). > > Looks like that, yes. I went for "from_vmentry" because I wasn't sure > if your missing patch was just reverting this: > > commit 7af40ad37b3f097f367cbe9c0198caccce6fd83b > Author: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat Jan 4 18:47:23 2014 +0100 > > KVM: nVMX: Fix nested_run_pending on activity state HLT > > When we suspend the guest in HLT state, the nested run is no longer > pending - we emulated it completely. So only set nested_run_pending > after checking the activity state. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I guess it would be possible to reset nested_run_pending on activity > state HLT, too, but I didn't feel like mangling your patches even more. > > Paolo
