2011/10/4 Russ Cox <r...@swtch.com>:
> To answer my question: the error message comes from 9pfuse.
> The extra bits are O_NOFOLLOW and O_LARGEFILE, both of
> which seem harmless in this context. Try this:
>
>
> diff -r 6db8fc2588f6 src/cmd/9pfuse/main.c
> --- a/src/cmd/9pfuse/main.c Mon Oct 03 18:16:09 2011 -0400
> +++ b/src/cmd/9pfuse/main.c Tue Oct 04 15:43:16 2011 -0400
> @@ -577,6 +577,13 @@
> openmode = flags&3;
> flags &= ~3;
> flags &= ~(O_DIRECTORY|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE|O_CLOEXEC);
> +#ifdef O_NOFOLLOW
> + flags &= ~O_NOFOLLOW
> +#endif
> +#ifdef O_LARGEFILE
> + flags &= ~O_LARGEFILE
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * Discarding O_APPEND here is not completely wrong,
> * because the host kernel will rewrite the offsets
> @@ -594,7 +601,7 @@
> * O_NONBLOCK -> ONONBLOCK
> */
> if(flags){
> - fprint(2, "unexpected open flags %#uo", (uint)in->flags);
> + fprint(2, "unexpected open flags %#uo\n", (uint)in->flags);
> replyfuseerrno(m, EACCES);
> return;
> }
>
>
Thanks I will try the patch as soon as I got time.
@ brian:
doing "cp -r" instead of "cp -ar" did not make a difference
