I'd love to see the name calling. I've read it several times now. I see him saying that this random patch out of the blue, without any discussion, doesn't follow any of the guidelines to submit a kernel patch, doesn't make any sense (in fact, seems to reimplement things already in the kernel), and isn't being accepted without a significant rework.

He never, ever, once, demeans the person who submitted the patch or shows a pattern of abuse to that person -- if you look up the definition of "abusive" you'll see it says (emphasis mine): "extremely offensive AND insulting". While the text may be offensive (to some, to my ex-military eyes, this is being nice), he never once insulted the author.