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? neal
