On 03/12/19 20:16, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 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.
The fourth is commit 9fe573d539a8 ("KVM: nVMX: reset cache/shadows when
switching loaded VMCS"), which was also autoselected.
Paolo
