[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bddc1cad-5646-edf5-2253-9490717ae8e5@wdc.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:54:45 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
On 07/26/18 10:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/26/18 1:48 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 02:56:24PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c b/drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c
>>> index 86121a7a19b2..8c30ac7d8078 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c
>>> @@ -891,7 +891,7 @@ nvmet_rdma_find_get_device(struct rdma_cm_id *cm_id)
>>>
>>> inline_page_count = num_pages(port->inline_data_size);
>>> inline_sge_count = max(cm_id->device->attrs.max_sge_rd,
>>> - cm_id->device->attrs.max_sge) - 1;
>>> + cm_id->device->attrs.max_send_sge) - 1;
>>
>> This should be max_recv_sge.
>
> Why do we even have this conflicts to begin with?
Hello Jens,
A detailed description of why that change is necessary is available at
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg65954.html. As far as I know
the entire RDMA community supports that change.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists