fix: correct misleading comment about fh_out remapping and fix fmt

fuse-pipe/src/protocol/request.rs

@@ -457,9 +457,10 @@ impl VolumeRequest {
             | Self::Setlk { fh, .. }
             | Self::Readdirplus { fh, .. } => *fh = new_fh,
             Self::Setattr { fh, .. } => *fh = Some(new_fh),
-            // Only remap fh_in; fh_out references a different file and must be
-            // remapped separately if it's also stale (the EBADF retry in RemapFs
-            // handles one handle at a time via fh()).
+            // Only remap fh_in; fh_out references a different file and is NOT
+            // currently remapped after snapshot restore. This is a known limitation:
+            // copy_file_range/remap_file_range with a stale fh_out will fail.
+            // TODO: add fh_out()/with_fh_out() helpers for independent remapping.
             Self::CopyFileRange { fh_in, .. } | Self::RemapFileRange { fh_in, .. } => {
                 *fh_in = new_fh;
             }

fuse-pipe/src/server/remap.rs

@@ -539,7 +539,10 @@ impl<T: FilesystemHandler> RemapFs<T> {
         let table: std::collections::BTreeMap<u64, String> = match serde_json::from_str(json) {
             Ok(t) => t,
             Err(e) => {
-                error!("failed to parse inode table JSON, starting with empty table: {}", e);
+                error!(
+                    "failed to parse inode table JSON, starting with empty table: {}",
+                    e
+                );
                 std::collections::BTreeMap::new()
             }
         };