> Am 10.09.2020 um 18:58 schrieb Max Reitz :
>
> On 01.09.20 14:51, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> in case of large continous areas that share the same allocation status
>> it happens that the value of s->sector_next_status is unaligned to the
>> cluster size or even request alignment of the source. A
On 01.09.20 14:51, Peter Lieven wrote:
> in case of large continous areas that share the same allocation status
> it happens that the value of s->sector_next_status is unaligned to the
> cluster size or even request alignment of the source. Avoid this by
> stripping down the s->sector_next_status p
On 01.09.20 14:51, Peter Lieven wrote:
> in case of large continous areas that share the same allocation status
> it happens that the value of s->sector_next_status is unaligned to the
> cluster size or even request alignment of the source. Avoid this by
> stripping down the s->sector_next_status p
in case of large continous areas that share the same allocation status
it happens that the value of s->sector_next_status is unaligned to the
cluster size or even request alignment of the source. Avoid this by
stripping down the s->sector_next_status position to cluster boundaries.
Signed-off-by: