From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
To: "seanjc@google.com" <seanjc@google.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc: "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"kas@kernel.org" <kas@kernel.org>,
"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"tglx@kernel.org" <tglx@kernel.org>,
"stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/virt/tdx: Fix lockdep assertion failure in cache flush for kexec
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 16:36:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4512921c8a248e0193cca3660b96e721e289b11d.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abAhne3A5WNARgZo@google.com>
On Tue, 2026-03-10 at 06:50 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Even when that series comes along, I would rather have __this_cpu_{read|write}()
> instead of the explicit lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled(). Similar to the WARN
> about IRQs being disabled that got removed, explicitly requiring that preemption
> be disabled feels like a description of the current code, not an actual requirement.
Agreed. It's just going to confusing if the log talks about a KVM unload path
that is not there. The simpler answer is just merge this first.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-10 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-02 10:22 Kai Huang
2026-03-02 10:22 ` [PATCH v2] " Kai Huang
2026-03-02 10:26 ` Huang, Kai
2026-03-05 18:33 ` Nikolay Borisov
2026-03-05 21:35 ` Huang, Kai
2026-03-06 9:58 ` Nikolay Borisov
2026-03-08 10:12 ` Huang, Kai
2026-03-10 13:43 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-03-09 16:38 ` [PATCH] " Edgecombe, Rick P
2026-03-10 7:19 ` Huang, Kai
2026-03-10 13:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-03-10 16:36 ` Edgecombe, Rick P [this message]
2026-03-10 21:15 ` Huang, Kai
2026-03-10 16:42 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4512921c8a248e0193cca3660b96e721e289b11d.camel@intel.com \
--to=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kai.huang@intel.com \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®