From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F593C43460 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1BF613A7 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1350623AbhDGKGE (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 06:06:04 -0400 Received: from 8bytes.org ([81.169.241.247]:33840 "EHLO theia.8bytes.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1350639AbhDGKFH (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 06:05:07 -0400 Received: by theia.8bytes.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 005BD2A6; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:04:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 12:04:55 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Paul Menzel Cc: Alexander Monakov , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Tj , Shuah Khan , David Coe , iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "iommu/amd: Fix performance counter initialization" Message-ID: References: <20210303121156.76621-1-pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de> <0a910a80-5783-1f3d-a8ea-5e10cba0e206@molgen.mpg.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <0a910a80-5783-1f3d-a8ea-5e10cba0e206@molgen.mpg.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org Hi Paul, On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:20:16AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: > Jörg, I know you are probably busy, but the patch was applied to the stable > series (v5.11.7). There are still too many question open regarding the > patch, and Suravee has not yet addressed the comments. It’d be great, if you > could revert it. We are currently discussing the next steps here. Maybe the retry logic can be removed entirely. Regards, Joerg