Comment by arp242
10 months ago
Where? Because "keep the wrappers in your code" and "do that in your driver so that you have to do it instead of spreading this" doesn't sound like that.
10 months ago
Where? Because "keep the wrappers in your code" and "do that in your driver so that you have to do it instead of spreading this" doesn't sound like that.
He said explicitely:
>Every additional bit that another language creeps in drastically reduces the maintainability of the kernel as an integrated project. The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language completely breaks this. You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this.
I think that clearly means he is out to sabotage any other language than C making it into Linux.
The end of the paragraph also emphasized the point
> I do not want it anywhere near a huge C code base that I need to maintain.
Link to mailing list: https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250131075751.GA16720@lst.de/
This was also on a patch that did "keep the wrappers in [rust-folder, not DMA] code". Arp242's interpretation isn't just belied by the direct words of the maintainer, it's belied by the fact that the code the maintainer rejected was exactly what Arp242 is suggesting the maintainer was asking for.
I wouldn't call being vocally against something "sabotage". Would it be reasonable if that person said anyone trying to get rust integrated is sabotaging the Linux kernel?
You're conflating two things. The fact that he voices his belief that Rust is harmful for kernel development is fair.
The fact that he is using his powers as maintainer of the DMA module to prevent Rust code from being added, with the explicit goal of making it harder to develop Rust drivers so that maybe the Rust-for-Linux project might get abandoned is an explicit act of sabotage against the R4L project (no one is saying he is sabotaging the Linux project itself).
In contrast, even accepting the "two languages bad" perspective, you can't call the R4L project "sabotage" in the same way, because they are clearly not intending to prevent or break anything in the Linux kernel, even if you think they will end up doing so as this maintainer does.
2 replies →
You're comparing the actual intent of one side of the argument to a watered down version of the other side. "I will do anything in my power to stop this" is the stated intent of sabotage, not "I'm vocally stating my opposition to this" If someone said "I will do anything in my power to stop Linux development to proceed without Rust integrated into it", then yes, that would sound like intent to sabotage, but that's not anywhere close to what anyone is saying.
So there's actually a reasoning behind this and not just personal preference or someone being stubborn. And as someone who has maintained large old code bases I must say the reasoning sounds pretty convincing.
If any of
> Every additional bit that another language creeps in drastically reduces the maintainability of the kernel as an integrated project. The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language completely breaks this.
is correct, he is actually fighting against sabotage.
edit for readability
This [0] seems to be the closest to your parent's statement:
> The common ground is that I have absolutely no interest in helping to spread a multi-language code base. I absolutely support using Rust in new codebase, but I do not at all in Linux.
[0] https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250204052916.GA28741@lst.de/
He needs really to be removed from the process. He may be useful for now but for long term he is an impediment. C is the 1970’s. Sure it’s proven itself… but so had Assembly when Unix was invented.
This kind of zealotry is not going to convince people over to accept Rust into their projects.