4 ms·

It's just really, really dumb to both a) have rust drivers in the kernel and b) not merge this patch. It's just obviously stupid. If you start with the assumpt

It's just really, really dumb to both a) have rust drivers in the kernel and b) not merge this patch. It's just obviously stupid. If you start with the assumption of a), there are no valid technical challenges to merging it. It's just better for everyone. Before Hellwig put his foot down as "not merging because rust sucks", he made a series of technical arguments against the patch, which were all transparently bullshit. It was those arguments that really raised such a furor, instead of all the other ways some C devs have disdained rust in the kernel in the past, because they were obviously made in bad faith. And when he was called out for them, he just went full "no rust in kernel".

arp242 2y ago
> Before Hellwig put his foot down as "not merging because rust sucks" He didn't say this at all. He explicitly and repeatedly said he has no problems with Rust as a language. And you can't just assert "there are no valid technical reasons". Just because you don't agree with the objections, or even think they're dumb, doesn't mean you can just dismiss them and start ascribing bad faith motives.
- sdwr 2y ago
  It's pretty clear that the battle over rust is a power struggle. You can't take any of it at face value
  - arp242 2y ago
    So what are you saying? That it's okay to just invent quotes and spread misinformation about people, based on what you suspect their true thoughts might be?
    - Ar-Curunir 2y ago
      You’re the one doing that by pretending that Hellwig is acting contrary to his own statements.
    - tw1984 2y ago
      wait a second, I thought you are the one labelling people as "toxic" when completely ignoring the context that really matters.
- cyberax 2y ago
  He literally called "Rust" a "cancer".
  - arp242 2y ago
    He literally did not. He literally explicitly said right there in the (in)famous "cancer" message that it didn't refer to Rust as a language.[1] "And I also do not want another maintainer. 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)." Stop spreading this kind of misinformation. And no, I don't think he came off very well here, but please, give it a good faith reading.[2] [1]: https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/ https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/ [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42977720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42977720
    - tw1984 2y ago
      care to explain why the following patch that touches nothing got rejected? rust/bindings/bindings_helper.h | 1 + rust/kernel/dma.rs | 271 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ rust/kernel/lib.rs | 1 + rejecting such patch is the exact cancer that need to cured. stop misleading people.
      - SXX 2y ago
        The reason patch got rejected is super simple: because this wrapper not lives in specific driver and depends on DMA subsystem internal API. And this cause problem. When someone make any change to Linux kernel they suppose to fix all the code they break across all kernel. And if said wrapper accepted then maintaner of DMA will have to make sure that all patches he accepts also fix Rust parts. So he just dont want extra burden for himself.
        tw1984 2y ago
        > because this wrapper not lives in specific driver and depends on DMA subsystem internal API. if multiple rust based drivers all need to have DMA support, what should they do? each come up with their own little magic? > And this cause problem. When someone make any change to Linux kernel they suppose to fix all the code they break across all kernel. this has been explained like 10+ times in this thread - it was made crystal clear to the DMA maintainer that he/she doesn't need to maintain the rust stuff, it is totally okay to break it. > So he just dont want extra burden for himself he can just resign. simple and period. no one is ever forcing him/her to be the maintainer when he/she is literally forcing other people to stop developing Linux support for the only powerful & affordable ARM machine for home use.
- Tuna-Fish 2y ago
  > He didn't say this at all. Okay, sorry. He just said there should be no rust in the kernel. You can ascribe bad faith motivations when someone presents technical objections that are already fully answered in the patch that was submitted, and when this is pointed out, they admit that, but don't retract their objections. The original objections are specifically not a case of differing values or design ideas. They are nonsensical, the equivalent of 1 = 2.
  - arp242 2y ago
    > Okay, sorry. He just said there should be no rust in the kernel. That's also not what he said; it's "no Rust in kernel/dma". He pretty much explicitly said it's okay for drivers to do their thing in Rust, but with their own wrappers. You can consider that dumb, but you can't shorten that to "no Rust in the kernel". And "I replied to your objections, therefore the matter is settled" is arrogant beyond belief. People can disagree, you know, because they have different priorities, different preferences, different perspectives, etc.
    - aeldidi 2y ago
      No he did say he doesn’t want rust in Linux at all. Now I understand that he didn’t say “I won’t allow rust to be in Linux”, which is a useful distinction to make. But let’s not pretend like he didn’t say “rust shouldn’t be in Linux” at all. https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250204052916.GA28741@lst.de/ https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250204052916.GA28741@lst.de/
    - cycomanic 2y ago
      He said no Rust (or any other language except C) in any core code. Notably the patch was not eve being added to kernel/dma
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        I think he even hates non-C code in the drivers, he just cares less about that. But his position is that kernel maintenance will only work longterm if it's all a single language (C).

arp242 2y ago

> Before Hellwig put his foot down as "not merging because rust sucks" He didn't say this at all. He explicitly and repeatedly said he has no problems with Rust as a language. And you can't just assert "there are no valid technical reasons". Just because you don't agree with the objections, or even think they're dumb, doesn't mean you can just dismiss them and start ascribing bad faith motives.

sdwr 2y ago
It's pretty clear that the battle over rust is a power struggle. You can't take any of it at face value
- arp242 2y ago
  So what are you saying? That it's okay to just invent quotes and spread misinformation about people, based on what you suspect their true thoughts might be?
  - Ar-Curunir 2y ago
    You’re the one doing that by pretending that Hellwig is acting contrary to his own statements.
  - tw1984 2y ago
    wait a second, I thought you are the one labelling people as "toxic" when completely ignoring the context that really matters.
cyberax 2y ago
He literally called "Rust" a "cancer".
- arp242 2y ago
  He literally did not. He literally explicitly said right there in the (in)famous "cancer" message that it didn't refer to Rust as a language.[1] "And I also do not want another maintainer. 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)." Stop spreading this kind of misinformation. And no, I don't think he came off very well here, but please, give it a good faith reading.[2] [1]: https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/ https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/ [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42977720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42977720
  - tw1984 2y ago
    care to explain why the following patch that touches nothing got rejected? rust/bindings/bindings_helper.h | 1 + rust/kernel/dma.rs | 271 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ rust/kernel/lib.rs | 1 + rejecting such patch is the exact cancer that need to cured. stop misleading people.
    - SXX 2y ago
      The reason patch got rejected is super simple: because this wrapper not lives in specific driver and depends on DMA subsystem internal API. And this cause problem. When someone make any change to Linux kernel they suppose to fix all the code they break across all kernel. And if said wrapper accepted then maintaner of DMA will have to make sure that all patches he accepts also fix Rust parts. So he just dont want extra burden for himself.
      - tw1984 2y ago
        > because this wrapper not lives in specific driver and depends on DMA subsystem internal API. if multiple rust based drivers all need to have DMA support, what should they do? each come up with their own little magic? > And this cause problem. When someone make any change to Linux kernel they suppose to fix all the code they break across all kernel. this has been explained like 10+ times in this thread - it was made crystal clear to the DMA maintainer that he/she doesn't need to maintain the rust stuff, it is totally okay to break it. > So he just dont want extra burden for himself he can just resign. simple and period. no one is ever forcing him/her to be the maintainer when he/she is literally forcing other people to stop developing Linux support for the only powerful & affordable ARM machine for home use.
Tuna-Fish 2y ago
> He didn't say this at all. Okay, sorry. He just said there should be no rust in the kernel. You can ascribe bad faith motivations when someone presents technical objections that are already fully answered in the patch that was submitted, and when this is pointed out, they admit that, but don't retract their objections. The original objections are specifically not a case of differing values or design ideas. They are nonsensical, the equivalent of 1 = 2.
- arp242 2y ago
  > Okay, sorry. He just said there should be no rust in the kernel. That's also not what he said; it's "no Rust in kernel/dma". He pretty much explicitly said it's okay for drivers to do their thing in Rust, but with their own wrappers. You can consider that dumb, but you can't shorten that to "no Rust in the kernel". And "I replied to your objections, therefore the matter is settled" is arrogant beyond belief. People can disagree, you know, because they have different priorities, different preferences, different perspectives, etc.
  - aeldidi 2y ago
    No he did say he doesn’t want rust in Linux at all. Now I understand that he didn’t say “I won’t allow rust to be in Linux”, which is a useful distinction to make. But let’s not pretend like he didn’t say “rust shouldn’t be in Linux” at all. https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250204052916.GA28741@lst.de/ https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250204052916.GA28741@lst.de/
  - cycomanic 2y ago
    He said no Rust (or any other language except C) in any core code. Notably the patch was not eve being added to kernel/dma
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      I think he even hates non-C code in the drivers, he just cares less about that. But his position is that kernel maintenance will only work longterm if it's all a single language (C).