It likely was a leftover from a development version of the code.
Fixes: 183819bfd9efac8c184d9bf123325719b7eee30f
// recommended Block size, then it is a waste
// of RAM to use a larger Block size. It may
// even allow more threads to be used in some
- // situations. If the special 0 Block size is
- // used (encode all remaining data in 1 Block)
- // then max_block_list_size will be set to
- // UINT64_MAX, so the recommended Block size
- // will always be used in this case.
+ // situations.
if (max_block_list_size > 0
&& max_block_list_size
< block_size)