On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Neal Cardwell <ncardw...@google.com> wrote: > n Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:13 PM Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote: >> Agreed. That's a good point. And I would much preferred to rename that >> to FLAG_ORIG_PROGRESS (w/ updated comment). > >> so I think we're in agreement to use existing patch w/ the new name >> FLAG_ORIG_PROGRESS > > Yes, SGTM. > > I guess this "prevent bogus FRTO undos" patch would go to "net" branch and > the s/FLAG_ORIG_SACK_ACKED/FLAG_ORIG_PROGRESS/ would go in "net-next" > branch? huh? why not one patch ... this is getting close to patch-split paralyses.
> > neal
