* Stefan Hajnoczi (stefa...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:00:35PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote: > > @@ -3097,9 +3097,10 @@ static void lo_copy_file_range(fuse_req_t req, > > fuse_ino_t ino_in, off_t off_in, > > > > fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, > > "lo_copy_file_range(ino=%" PRIu64 "/fd=%d, " > > - "off=%lu, ino=%" PRIu64 "/fd=%d, " > > - "off=%lu, size=%zd, flags=0x%x)\n", > > - ino_in, in_fd, off_in, ino_out, out_fd, off_out, len, flags); > > + "off=%ju, ino=%" PRIu64 "/fd=%d, " > > + "off=%ju, size=%zd, flags=0x%x)\n", > > + ino_in, in_fd, (intmax_t)off_in, > > + ino_out, out_fd, (intmax_t)off_out, len, flags); > > The rest of the patch used uint64_t. Why intmax_t here?
Because it seems to be the standard way of doing it for things that may be off_t. > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com> Thanks. Dave -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
