On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hun...@intel.com> wrote: > On 08/11/17 11:30, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hun...@intel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Recovery is simpler to understand if it is only used for errors. Create a >>> separate function for card polling. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hun...@intel.com> >> >> This looks good but I can't see why it's not folded into >> patch 3 already. This error handling is introduced there. > > What are you on about?
You are attacking your most valuable resource, a reviewer. And I even said the patch looks good. The only thing you attain with this kind of langauge is alienante me and discourage others to review your patch set. You also give your employer a bad name, since you are representing them. > If we're going to split up the patches (which I > argued against - the new code is all new, so it could be read independently > from the old mess) then this is a logically distinct step. Polling and > error-recovery are conceptually different things and it is important to > separate them to make the code easier to understand. I understand it can be tough to deal with review comments and it can make you loose your temper when people (sometimes even the same person!) say contradictory things. But in hindsight, don't you think these 5 last lines of your message had been enough without that first line? Yours, Linus Walleij
