On Wed, 22 May 2019 17:09:38 +0200 "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> 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?
