This is the only way I can think of resolving the weirdness that is
LFS_O_SYNC + LFS_O_DESYNC. Just don't allow it.
LFS_O_SYNC and LFS_O_DESYNC are pretty much opposite behaviors, so an
LFS_O_SYNC + LFS_O_DESYNC file seems like a contradiction.
---
This does limit a little bit what's possible with the API, but hey that
just means fewer tests/smaller API surface area for users to stub their
toes on.
Saves a tiny bit of code:
code stack ctx
before: 35824 2480 640
after: 35816 (-0.0%) 2480 (+0.0%) 640 (+0.0%)
Christopher Haster
78f9dac162