The "Constructive" version will be handwaved by submitting the same code again and giving literally any deflecting excuse like "You're just afraid of using new technology like this function.
Right, in fact, if I were the developer who wrote that shit, I would probably think twice about doing any work on the code. Not because I was insulted but because I would be scared. I don't know about this specific situation and maybe it's political/religious. But maybe the girl/guy just wrote this code because they thought it was the best solution. Being screamed at by an authority like that (even if they don't mention you by name) would be quite demoralizing to me. But I guess you can argue that I just don't have what it takes to be a Linux contributor then..
The Linux Kernel doesn't exist to validate your opinion of yourself, but to literally support the world's software infrastructure. Which is more important.
Did you read the thread? The programmer who wrote the original patch is arguing with him, just as he would have had Linus' reply been polite. I seems that vitriol does not have the power you think it does.
The lesson a lot of people are going to learn from this is, "Don't submit any code to Linux." Not submitting code like this is merely going to be a small side effect. Especially since Linus doesn't explain his reasoning so there's no real way to know if the next chunk of code is going to displease him or not.
The lesson a lot of people are going to learn from
this is, "Don't submit any code to Linux."
It seems to have a different agenda anyway, that the shouting is unacceptable regardless of any benefit. I'm not sure I go along with that either.
Watch me! (not really, but if I wanted to troll Linus, rants like that would serve as encouragement)
Also using the compiler builtins is the most secure, most readable, least error-prone and fastest way of implementing overflow checks.