linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] hwmon: (max31790) Rework to use regmap

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

Message-ID: <CABKa3np=osah3zcNmwohL0h8sVOHYcGW6rNYhM=1OzrOiLo50A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:29:55 +0200
From:   Václav Kubernát <kubernat@...net.cz>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] hwmon: (max31790) Rework to use regmap

po 26. 4. 2021 v 16:18 odesílatel Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> napsal:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 02:46:27PM +0200, Václav Kubernát wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I'm sending a new version of my patch on max31790. This new version
> > fixes the cache issue and actually makes it work by setting
> > .cache_type. You were right about the "yes/no" ranges, so I flipped
> > those.
> >
> > By the way, it seems that the reason your reply got lost is because of
> > weird addresses in the "Cc:" email field, they end with "cesnet.cz",
> > so it could be that I'm sending email incorrectly. Let me know if I'm
> > doing something wrong.
> >
>
> Yes, the To: field of your series is either empty (for the first patch
> of the series), or it is something like:
>         To: unlisted-recipients: no To-header on input <;
>
> Also, you send your follow-up series as response of the previous series
> which doesn't follow the guidance for submitting patches and may result
> in the entire series getting lost.
>

Sorry, I will fix my email-sending procedure. Should I resend the
patch series without the In-Reply-To field?

Václav

> Guenter