>> currently, since amaps are not extended *backwards*, there's no way to
>> merge a new entry forwards with an existing entry *if* the following
>> entry is backed by an amap.  a bimerge is simply a new allocation that
>> filled the gap between two existing allocations.  plain forward merges
>> actually occur rather infrequently.
>
>Suppose following case:
>
>prev_entry wi/ amap | gap will be filled by new entry | next_entry w/o amap 
>
>	   A			  B				   C
>
>The resulting entry covers A+B+C but amap only covers A+B, doesn't it?

an excellent idea!  let me try it out...

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
werdna@squooshy.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."