Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com> writes: > Tyrel Datwyler <tyr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > >> Maybe we are ok with this behavior as I haven't dug deep enough into the >> memory >> subsystem here to really understand what the memory code is updating, but it >> is >> concerning that we are doing it in some cases, but not all. > > I hope I've made a good case above that the notifier does not do any > useful work, and a counterpart for the v2 format isn't needed. Do you > agree? > > If so, I'll send a patch later to remove the notifier altogether. In the > near term I would still like this minimal fix to go in.
Tyrel, ack?
