On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:32:03PM +0100, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (16/01/14 21:24), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>While looking at another issue I realized that we used a wrong
>formatting conversion for UID/GID values - %d. For very large values,
>there were sometimes overflows (-1) in the DEBUG logs. The attached
Acctualy, it is not an overflow, only negative number war printed in
>patch converts the format specifier to PRIu32 as the value we print is
>I'm fine with pushing this patch atop Nikolai's patches so that we don't
>make him rebase the large patchset again.
You will need to write almost new patch :-)
It would not be possible to rebase it easily.
Is there any blocker for Nikolai's patches?
No, I will test them again (I suspect there would be another rebase
needed, we pushed some urgent fixes in the meantime) and push them to