← Back to context

Comment by mustache_kimono

10 months ago

> In fact, he said that as his very first reply to that thread:

I think it's clear from the surrounding context that you are likely over-interpreting some of Hector's comments.

What is the losing side of history here? There is simply too much C code in the Linux project to say "stop this ride, I want to get off and only use Rust" right now. This is a fight about some new code. Rust drivers in kernel and perhaps in the future Rust in other places it makes sense. I believe Hector's arguing Rust drivers are inevitable, because they are already here!

What did I say above:

> I think we should be very clear -- believing the future of systems programming is mostly memory safe isn't the same thing as saying "C programmers should...get out of the way".

5 comments

mustache_kimono

Reply
fluoridation  10 months ago

As I read it, "the losing side of history" refers to insisting on using C, possibly at all. The last part about the "world moving forward towards memory-safe languages" doesn't suggest a limited scope for the statement.

The thread was not about Rust drivers, it was about adding Rust code to the DMA module. I.e. about mixing two different languages in a single module, thus requiring being knowledgeable about both languages in order to maintain it, thus making the module less maintainable. In fact, a few developers were saying that they didn't mind Rust drivers, if they used the C ABI as-is. Someone wanted to expose new Rust-specific interfaces to support cleaner abstractions from Rust drivers.

  • mustache_kimono  10 months ago

    > The thread was not about Rust drivers, it was about adding Rust code to the DMA module. I.e. about mixing two different languages in a single module

    AFAIK this is false. The patch was CCed to the maintainer as FYI, but all the code was in a Rust a module binding to the C DMA interface. If I'm wrong, show me the code.

    See the discussion here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/1/9/398