4 ms·
Linus said that non-rustacean C programmers cannot veto rust code, but he did not clearly state how it works going the opposite way. It was rustacean-proposed c
by evanjrowley 2y ago
Linus said that non-rustacean C programmers cannot veto rust code, but he did not clearly state how it works going the opposite way. It was rustacean-proposed changes on the C side that led to this drama. I don't see much progress here.
- Diggsey 2y agoI don't think that's accurate. It was adding Rust DMA code that was to be shared between Rust drivers that was the spark. The C code was unchanged AFAIK.
- dralley 2y agoThe patches did not touch the C side whatsoever, a fact that Linus was pretty vocal about in his berating.
- timeon 2y ago> It was rustacean-proposed changes on the C side that led to this drama. Why would you say something like that? From the e-mail [0] the article is based on: > The fact is, the pull request you objected to DID NOT TOUCH THE DMA LAYER AT ALL. > It was literally just another user of it, in a completely separate subdirectory, that didn't change the code you maintain in _any_ way, shape, or form. [0]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/2/20/2066 https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/2/20/2066