I beleive he clarified in the same sentence that he was not calling the language Rust cancer... to quote "where this cancer explicitly is a cross-language codebase and not Rust itself, just to escape the flameware brigade"
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]
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.
I beleive he clarified in the same sentence that he was not calling the language Rust cancer... to quote "where this cancer explicitly is a cross-language codebase and not Rust itself, just to escape the flameware brigade"
So, to be more specific, he called Rust in Linux kernel source a cancer.
It needs to be a little more specific to be correct; a cross language codebase would be the cancer.
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://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42977720
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.
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.
3 replies →
> that it didn't refer to Rust as a language.
No, he didnt refer to Rust as cancer, but to Rust in the Linux kernel / the R4L project.