3 ms·

>That is not what the maintainer said. The maintainer said that for Rust code in the area he is currently maintaining. I think the main issue was, the he was no

>That is not what the maintainer said. The maintainer said that for Rust code in the area he is currently maintaining. I think the main issue was, the he was not accepting second maintainer to take care the Rust part on the same area. The Rust code is not in the area he was currently maintaining. Christoph didn't even look at the patches before objecting to them. Once it was pointed out that they were not in his area, he rejected them anyway. Note that, because they are not in his area, he does not actually have the authority to do this. He was CC'd in an advisory sense, it's not really his call to accept them or not, and as a longtime kernel maintainer he surely knows this.

nicce 2y ago
If that is true, why he was the one that was asked to review/ or why his opinion even matters here? The must be some sort of correlation to his code or this does not make sense at all..
- dralley 2y ago
  He wasn't asked, he was CC'd on the patchset because it wraps his subsystem. If he was interested in doing a driveby review in good faith, or taking interest in what was going on, then he could have done so.
caspper69 2y ago
The issue is it creates a downstream dependency on his code, even if it is 100% separate and separately maintained. Once the wrapper is written, any breaking changes he makes in the DMA subsystem will, by their very nature, percolate downstream to the Rust wrapper and then to any Rust code that relies on it. So basically from that point forth, he will always have to consider the ramifications of his changes on another group of developers, and deal with any backlash those may cause. Is he being unreasonable? I tend to lean on the side of "yes," but I can certainly empathize with his point of view (not necessarily his approach, however).
- steveklabnik 2y ago
  He does not need to consider those ramifications because it is up to the rust for Linux people to fix the issues. He does not need to care about them at all. They reiterated that in the thread too.
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    This works only if you trust the Rust people to do their job. Obviously the maintainer does not trust the Rust people, but they also did nothing to gain his trust, but the opposite. Just saying "Trust me, or else I will shame you" is not a viable strategy. The default position of any code maintainer who sees some people coming and saying that they would maintain from now on some parts of the code and that there should be no worries about that, is to not trust them immediately, but only after enough time passes during which they demonstrate that they are really competent and not just claiming to be so.
    - xmgplays 2y ago
      No it does not require trust. If the RfL people don't do their job, well then Linux releases with the Rust parts marked broken and that's that.
    - intelfx 2y ago
      Saying "I do not trust you, so I'm going to stonewall your entire work with which you could have built that trust" is not viable either. Besides, none of this was said. Hellwig did not say "I do not trust you enough". He said "you are cancer, go away". First is harsh, but at least somewhat reasonable (in the sense that it _can be reasoned with_); second is not reasonable at all. Your interpretation is excessively charitable to an obvious bad-faith actor.
      - veidr 2y ago
        Why do you guys keep saying he said this?? He did not say that, and you (and everybody else) can see it for yourselves: > If you want to make Linux impossible to maintain due to a cross-language codebase do that in your driver so that you have to do it instead of spreading this cancer to core subsystems. (where this cancer explicitly is a cross-language codebase and not rust itself, just to escape the flameware brigade). https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/ https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250128092334.GA2854... That's totally, utterly different than your characterization of it. (So many other people were also falsely claiming that he said it like that, I initially assumed it was true, so I'm a little irritated.)

nicce 2y ago

If that is true, why he was the one that was asked to review/ or why his opinion even matters here? The must be some sort of correlation to his code or this does not make sense at all..

dralley 2y ago
He wasn't asked, he was CC'd on the patchset because it wraps his subsystem. If he was interested in doing a driveby review in good faith, or taking interest in what was going on, then he could have done so.

caspper69 2y ago

The issue is it creates a downstream dependency on his code, even if it is 100% separate and separately maintained. Once the wrapper is written, any breaking changes he makes in the DMA subsystem will, by their very nature, percolate downstream to the Rust wrapper and then to any Rust code that relies on it. So basically from that point forth, he will always have to consider the ramifications of his changes on another group of developers, and deal with any backlash those may cause. Is he being unreasonable? I tend to lean on the side of "yes," but I can certainly empathize with his point of view (not necessarily his approach, however).

steveklabnik 2y ago
He does not need to consider those ramifications because it is up to the rust for Linux people to fix the issues. He does not need to care about them at all. They reiterated that in the thread too.
- adrian_b 2y ago
  This works only if you trust the Rust people to do their job. Obviously the maintainer does not trust the Rust people, but they also did nothing to gain his trust, but the opposite. Just saying "Trust me, or else I will shame you" is not a viable strategy. The default position of any code maintainer who sees some people coming and saying that they would maintain from now on some parts of the code and that there should be no worries about that, is to not trust them immediately, but only after enough time passes during which they demonstrate that they are really competent and not just claiming to be so.
  - xmgplays 2y ago
    No it does not require trust. If the RfL people don't do their job, well then Linux releases with the Rust parts marked broken and that's that.
  - intelfx 2y ago
    Saying "I do not trust you, so I'm going to stonewall your entire work with which you could have built that trust" is not viable either. Besides, none of this was said. Hellwig did not say "I do not trust you enough". He said "you are cancer, go away". First is harsh, but at least somewhat reasonable (in the sense that it _can be reasoned with_); second is not reasonable at all. Your interpretation is excessively charitable to an obvious bad-faith actor.
    - veidr 2y ago
      Why do you guys keep saying he said this?? He did not say that, and you (and everybody else) can see it for yourselves: > If you want to make Linux impossible to maintain due to a cross-language codebase do that in your driver so that you have to do it instead of spreading this cancer to core subsystems. (where this cancer explicitly is a cross-language codebase and not rust itself, just to escape the flameware brigade). https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/ https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250128092334.GA2854... That's totally, utterly different than your characterization of it. (So many other people were also falsely claiming that he said it like that, I initially assumed it was true, so I'm a little irritated.)