On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 19:44, Mark Syms <mark.s...@citrix.com> wrote:
> So, actually the original comparison in the assert (dodgy scaling factor not 
> withstanding) was probably correct in that we don't ever want to remove all 
> blocks from the inode as one of them is used for the inode itself? Or do we 
> still think it should allow for change to be the negative of current blocks?

It doesn't make a difference; all we care about is that we don't go
negative. I think the updated comparison better reflects that goal.


Reply via email to