On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 01:52:47PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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.
4? I see three patches here, the 2 follow-up patches that I applied to
the queue, and the "original" backport of b7031fd40fcc ("KVM: nVMX:
reset cache/shadows when switching loaded VMCS") which showed up in the
4.14.157 and 4.19.87 kernels.
confused,
greg k-h
