> > Mind I'll send a new patch? > Sure. The new patch uses "%lld" instead of "%ld". Thank you, Konsstantin. On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:30 AM Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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
