Hi, On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:15:53AM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > >Why was g_file_storage done differently, I don't know ;-) > > Well, because... uhm... Nice whether outside, isn't it? ;) hehe :-) > >So, if we have "removable" set to one, we connect straight away, > >but if we don't there's no reason to connect to host until we have the > >backing file opened. So, if we fail opening the backing file, we > >shouldn't even connect to host IMHO. > > g_file_storage and g_mass_storage both fail to load if removable=0 and > file was not specified or code could not open it. aaa good good :-) My bad then. No changes for mass storage needed :-) -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
