On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:41 PM Yuchung Cheng <ych...@google.com> wrote:
> 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. The flag rename seemed like a cosmetic issue that was not needed for the fix. Smelled like net-next to me. But I don't feel strongly. However you guys want to package it is fine with me. :-) neal
