From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49220 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751442AbdAYX6F (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:58:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [BISECT 4.1.y] [PATCH] regression: kvm: migration hangs guest To: Eric Wheeler , kvm@vger.kernel.org References: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Haozhong Zhang , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Gleb Natapov From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 00:58:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 26/01/2017 00:50, Eric Wheeler wrote: > 609e36d372a KVM: x86: pass host_initiated to functions that read MSRs > 81b1b9ca6d5 KVM: VMX: Fix host initiated access to guest MSR_TSC_AUX > > Thus, we need to either: > 1. Revert commit 8a3185c54d650a86dafc8d8bcafa124b50944315 > - or - > 2. Merge commits 609e36d372a and 81b1b9ca6d5 into 4.1.y. > > If you choose the latter options, then please see below for the backport > patch of 81b1b9ca6d5 (609e36d372a cherry-picks just fine). > > What do you believe would be best? The latter is better. Paolo