linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: ftdi: correct merge conflict with CONTEC id

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100621211808.GA25511@kroah.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:18:08 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Daniel Sangorrin <daniel.sangorrin@...il.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, 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

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:08:19AM +0900, Daniel Sangorrin wrote:
> 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?

This is good, I just wanted to know this information as to what went
wrong.  I'll put this into the changelog entry.

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/