On 27 Feb 12:06, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
-struct mlx5e_umr_wqe {
+struct mlx5e_umr_wqe_hdr {
struct mlx5_wqe_ctrl_seg ctrl;
struct mlx5_wqe_umr_ctrl_seg uctrl;
struct mlx5_mkey_seg mkc;
+};
+
+struct mlx5e_umr_wqe {
+ struct mlx5e_umr_wqe_hdr hdr;
You missed or ignored my comment on v0, anyway:
Can we have struct mlx5e_umr_wq_hdr defined anonymously within
mlx5e_umr_wqe? Let's avoid namespace pollution.
I thought your comment was directed to Jabuk.
I don't see how to avoid that and at the same time changing
the type of the conflicting object and fix the warnings:
- struct mlx5e_umr_wqe umr_wqe;
+ struct mlx5e_umr_wqe_hdr umr_wqe;
My first patch avoids the need to introduce a bunch of `hdr.`
changes. However, `hdr` is introduced as an identifier for
the members grouped in the new type `struct mlx5e_umr_wqe_hdr`.
Of course struct_group_tagged() also creates an anonymous struct,
which is why we can avoid all those `hdr.` changes in v1.
I missed the fact that it was used part of another struct that needed only
the header.
This patch is alright, no need to change anything.
Reviewed-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Gustavo
