From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:56:43 +0200
Message-ID: <20180726175643.GA10765@lst.de>
References: <20180726145624.13a604ed@canb.auug.org.au> <20180726084833.GA23310@lst.de> <a65a6023-a527-b9c6-0d78-a175d47f55cf@kernel.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a65a6023-a527-b9c6-0d78-a175d47f55cf@kernel.dk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>, Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Steve Wise <swise@opengridcomputing.com>
List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:48:21AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>  	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?

Because the nvme code added a new user of max_sges while the RDMA tree
split it into two separate fields.  We discussed this a while ago when
the issue came up.