Tim Nordell

One thing I wasn't sure about is the lfs_fs_preporphans(...) count added/removed. Technically we're removing multiple "blocks" at once from the allocated filesystem with this change so I wasn't sure if...

I guess not actually testing it in the compile environment within littlefs was a mistake, nor running the test suite. It's fixed now. :) (I only tried it in my...

> Sorry about the delay between CI jobs, the new "workflow approval for first time contributors" requirement means I need to manually allow the CI to run, which I unfortunately...

Hi @geky - > It looks like a "reentrant" test is failing, which needs the -r flag (these test power cycling and take longer, `make test TESTFLAGS+='-r'` or `./scripts/test.py -r`)....

I just realized there are some stylistic things I need to conform to the codebase too. For instance, I'm usually a little more verbose and have { on new lines,...

Maybe lfs_atomic_remove(...) and lfs_atomic_rename(...)? The base ones are atomic (if I understand it correctly), too, but we just handle a wider range of use-cases with this changeset. Incidentally, in Linux...

Hi @geky - I added the lfs_remove_recursive(...) feature. So there are 3 new API functions overall: - lfs_atomic_remove(...) - lfs_atomic_rename(...) - lfs_remove_recursive(...) The lfs_atomic_*(...) ones do not support folders with...

@wreyford - Glad you found it useful. We have something similar were we can accumulate several small files and I needed it to unlink more quickly, too. I did find...

@geky and @wreyford - The lfs_remove_recursive(...) routine is fixed. I *suppose* a future change for that would be to remove the top-level folder (and marking it as an orphan), and...

I realized I had some redundant code in the lfs_remove_recursive(...) codepath. It's consolidated now.