On 10/10/2015 10:16 AM, Phil Stracchino wrote: > On 10/09/15 22:05, Kern Sibbald wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Thanks for pointing this out. I still have problems imagining that they >> would define O_RDONLY as 0 in a bitmapped variable!!! > It makes more sense if you think of it as the absence of O_RDWR.
Unfortunately, it is even more complicated than that, because it is actually the absence of O_RWRD and O_WRONLY. In my opinion the original implementation was faulty because O_RDONLY should really be defined as: #define O_RDONLY !(O_RWRD&O_RONLY) See my second to last commit ... Goan, but that is how it is so now we know, and hopefully it should now work correctly. Best regards, Kern ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
