| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <AANLkTinPDECqU-GYKpD7_2IHb2qKjhCnViXkPDqN_cpu@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:08:19 +0900 From: Daniel Sangorrin <daniel.sangorrin@...il.com> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> Cc: Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>, Radek Liboska <liboska@...hb.cas.cz>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: ftdi: correct merge conflict with CONTEC id Hi Greg, I believe the merge problem occurred with the commit: dee5658b482e9e2ac7d6205dc876fc11d4008138 Originally I submitted a patch and then they asked me to order the IDs and resubmit, so did I. But unfortunately in the end somehow both patches were merged. [PATCH] USB: serial: ftdi: add CONTEC vendor and product id [PATCH resubmit] USB: serial: ftdi: add CONTEC vendor and product id Was I supposed to do the resubmit patch in a way that would unpatch the first patch? Or is the word resubmit enough to know that this is the good patch? Thanks! Dani On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:30:02PM +0900, Daniel Sangorrin wrote: >> This patch corrects a problem with the merge of a previous >> patch to add the CONTEC identifier. > > What patch had the merge problem? Did I just end up duplicating stuff > incorrectly? What was the git commit id? > > thanks, > > greg k-h > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists