I was originally avoiding naming these orphans, as they're _technically_
not orphans. They do exist in the mtree. But the name orphan just
describes this types purpose too well.
This does lead to some confusing terms, such as the fact that orphan
files can be non-orphaned if there are any in-device references. But I
think this makes sense?
- LFSR_TAG_SCRATCH -> LFSR_TAG_ORPHAN
- LFSR_F_UNCREAT -> LFSR_F_ORPHAN
- test_fscratch.toml -> test_forphan.toml
Christopher Haster
15593ccc49