Comment by pas
10 months ago
Isn't the charitable interpretation that the subsystem he is a maintainer of is downstream from the proposed changes?
10 months ago
Isn't the charitable interpretation that the subsystem he is a maintainer of is downstream from the proposed changes?
I 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.