Re: Replace some %llu remnants in the tree

Hi,

On 2025-06-09 12:59:20 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> While hacking a different patch, I've noticed that a couple of %llu
> did not get the PRIu64 call in the AIO code, and I don't see why we
> could not switch them. These have been introduced in commits that got
> into the tree after Peter's 15a79c73111f.

FWIW, I find it utterly unsurpising that new users of %llu were introduced
after 15a79c73111f. For one, 15a79c73111f explicitly says "(minimal trial)" in
the subject line, it'd have hardly been sensible to introduce PRI* uses at
that point. Only a0ed19e0a9e, changed most of the uses (after e.g. the
io_uring uses were introduced). For another, how is everyone even supposed to
even have known about this new policy, it was just discussed in a long thread,
at a very busy time? Even now I suspect we'll grow more %ll[ud] users, it's
after all what we've been trained to do for quite a while now.

Greetings,

Andres Freund