From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 02:47:13 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/4] nvmet-rdma: +1 to *queue_size from hsqsize/hrqsize
In-Reply-To: <1471377415-29337-2-git-send-email-james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com>
References: <1471377415-29337-1-git-send-email-james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com>
 <1471377415-29337-2-git-send-email-james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <20160817004713.GA21992@lst.de>

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016@12:56:52PM -0700, Jay Freyensee wrote:
>  	/*
> -	 * req->hsqsize corresponds to our recv queue size
> -	 * req->hrqsize corresponds to our send queue size
> +	 * req->hsqsize corresponds to our recv queue size plus 1
> +	 * req->hrqsize corresponds to our send queue size plus 1
>  	 */
> -	queue->recv_queue_size = le16_to_cpu(req->hsqsize);
> -	queue->send_queue_size = le16_to_cpu(req->hrqsize);
> +	queue->recv_queue_size = le16_to_cpu(req->hsqsize) + 1;
> +	queue->send_queue_size = le16_to_cpu(req->hrqsize) + 1;

I brought this up on the nvme-technical list and the consensus is
that hrqsize doesn't use the one off notation.  hsqsize refers to
the sqsize which is marked as "0's based", while hrqsize only
has a short and not very meaningful explanation, which implies that
it's '1's based' in NVMe terms (which, btw I think are utterly misleading).