On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 04:29:55PM +0200, Václav Kubernát wrote: > po 26. 4. 2021 v 16:18 odesílatel Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
