On 23.01.20 13:17, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2020-01-21 at 16:02:16 +01, Max Reitz wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 17.01.20 11:34, David Edmondson wrote:

[...]

>>> +
>>> +    if (!s->has_zero_init && s->target_is_new && s->min_sparse &&
>>> +        !s->target_has_backing) {
>>
>> (This will be irrelevant after target_has_backing is gone, but because
>> has_zero_init and target_has_backing are equivalent here, there is no
>> need to check both.)
> 
> I don't understand this comment - I must be missing something.

Just the fact that for some reason I read “target_has_backing” as
“target_is_zero”.  Sorry for the false alarm. O:-)

Max