4 ms·
This seems quite ironic to say when the whole drama started with Christoph not even looking at the patches long enough to see what directory they were in before
by dralley 2y ago
This seems quite ironic to say when the whole drama started with Christoph not even looking at the patches long enough to see what directory they were in before rejecting them.
- pas 2y agoIsn't the charitable interpretation that the subsystem he is a maintainer of is downstream from the proposed changes?
- dralley 2y agoI mean, no, because the straightforwards reading of his first email doesn't match with the facts. He said "no rust code in kernel/DMA" when the patch did not add any rust code to kernel/DMA. The fact that the patch wraps kernel/DMA is why he was CC'd in the first place, but that doesn't give him authority to unilaterally reject it any more than he would have the authority to reject an Nvidia driver for using DMA. What would happen in that case (and is likely to also happen in this one) is that CH's objection will be completely ignored, because it's absurd. Maintaining the DMA subsystem doesn't give you veto rights against every driver or subsystem that needs to use it.
- exabrial 2y agoApologies, that I can onboard with, I was just speaking about the comment. The old school guys do things for a certain reason that young contributors often don't appreciate. Enough violations of that, and you're often ignored. Perhaps thats what has happened here? Clearly this is a communication problem more than anything else.
- dralley 2y agoThat's not what happened here. https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2b9b75d1-eb8e-494a-b05f-59f75c92e6ae@marcan.st/T/#m0bae70ab6b7ca3a8ff724a1a8f1f5e132570396b https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2b9b75d1-eb8e-494a-b0...