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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20210426143559.GA112486@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:35:59 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Václav Kubernát <kubernat@...net.cz>
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

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 04:29:55PM +0200, Václav Kubernát wrote:
> 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?
> 
No, just keep it in mind for next time.

Thanks,
Guenter