-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. -- Gustavo
