While I think shrub_size is probably the more correct name at a
technical level, inline_size is probably more what users expect and
doesn't require a deeper understanding of filesystem details.
The only risk is that users may think inline_size has no effect on large
files, when in fact it still controls how much of the btree root can be
inlined.
There's also the point that sticking with inline_size maintains
compatibility with both the upstream version and any future version that
has other file representations.
May revisit this, but renaming to lfs->cfg->inline_size for now.
Christopher Haster
bac2464b8f