On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:19:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 22 May 2019 17:09:38 +0200 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" > <ure...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It does not make sense to try to "unlink" the node that is > > definitely not linked with a list nor tree. On the first > > merge step VA just points to the previously disconnected > > busy area. > > > > On the second step, check if the node has been merged and do > > "unlink" if so, because now it points to an object that must > > be linked. > > Again, what is the motivation for this change? Seems to be a bit of a > code/logic cleanup, no significant runtime effect? > It is just about some cleanups. Nothing related to design change and it behaviors as before.
-- Vlad Rezki
