Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 4 Sep 2018 00:41:27 +0200
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To:     Tomas Bortoli <tomasbortoli@gmail.com>
Cc:     ericvh@gmail.com, rminnich@sandia.gov, lucho@ionkov.net,
        davem@davemloft.net, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        syzkaller@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: Rename req to rreq
Message-ID: <20180903224127.GB25084@nautica>
References: <20180903160321.2181-1-tomasbortoli@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180903160321.2181-1-tomasbortoli@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Tomas Bortoli wrote on Mon, Sep 03, 2018:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: Rename req to rreq

I feel this is a bit too vague, how about either of these?
'9p: Rename req to rreq in trans_fd'
or
'9p/fd: Rename req to rreq'

We still have plenty of 'req' in client.c and all other transports, so
it would feel like a lie otherwise :)

> In struct p9_conn, rename req to rreq as it is used by the read routine.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomas Bortoli <tomasbortoli@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Jun Piao <piaojun@huawei.com>

Nitpick on title aside LGTM, I've picked this up for linux-next

-- 
Dominique