From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932493Ab0FUVpr (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:45:47 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:41599 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932089Ab0FUVpq (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:45:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:18:08 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Daniel Sangorrin Cc: Greg KH , Andreas Mohr , Radek Liboska , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: serial: ftdi: correct merge conflict with CONTEC id Message-ID: <20100621211808.GA25511@kroah.com> References: <20100618143727.GA16398@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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