On 09/11/17 14:52, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 08/11/17 11:30, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> 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.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> 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. 6 months of being messed around will do that. >> 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? Very true.
