Hi Konstantin, On 9/13/20 8:16 PM, Konstantin Bukin wrote: >> Do you agree it solves this problem? > > No, that does not solve the problem. There is still casting to a > signed resulting in printing negative inode. True. The definition of ino_t is unsigned, so the example was wrong from the beginning. > > Using %llu might be better since that would not require including an > extra header. We just had that discussion in this thread: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/20200911231411.28406-1-colomar.6.4.3@xxxxxxxxx/T/#m971e4dcfae5f25e0f26c906679aa7176b6786bdf We decided to go for [u]intmax_t. But the patch has not yet been applied, so you arrive just in time to give reasons against it. > > Mind I'll send a new patch? Sure. Cheers, Alex
