We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
This was mentioned in #238 and #279. Basically changing block size doesn't trigger a mount failure.
Is there any reason to not say that "lfs_mount" will fail if the config->block_count != superblock->block_count?
If the first mount fails, then there could be two options:
A quick test shows this doesn't have any negative effects on our system. I can't imagine it would affect anyone else negatively...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Pull request created in #584
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
This was mentioned in #238 and #279. Basically changing block size doesn't trigger a mount failure.
Is there any reason to not say that "lfs_mount" will fail if the config->block_count != superblock->block_count?
If the first mount fails, then there could be two options:
A quick test shows this doesn't have any negative effects on our system. I can't imagine it would affect anyone else negatively...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: