[uecker]

I don't think this is a fair characterization. I think the accusations from the Rust side that the project is "sabotaged" or "non-technical arguments" etc. are a typical symptom of denial. All the hype and enthusiasm related to Rust is that you can just write something easily in C instead of Rust (or rewrite) and then all problems related to safety are solved. And some of those people really believe this nonsense. The real world complexities unsurprisingly do not go away simply by using Rust. The signs are all over: The project is moving very slowly, the very enthusiastic people who move it along with sheer will power get burned out, there also CVEs in Rust code, etc. But if you bought all the Rust arguments and are now invested, it is difficult to accept that the solution of the safety problems is not as simple "rewrite to Rust". So the more immature part of the Rust communities starts to blame politics. Now, I do not want to say that there are not grains of truth in all these points (I do think memory safety is great, I do think that C ecosystem has issues, I agree that there are many good ideas in Rust, and certainly skepticism from others makes it harder to push something forward in a community, etc.), but overall I think it is mostly delusional ideas from Rust folks encountering the real world, and instead of critical self-reflection on what needs to improved both in terms of social aspects of collaboration and maybe also on the technical side, they blame others for sabotaging the project and organize a social media circus to force their ideas on a community (which of course, is super toxic and evil)

[pulsartwin]

I don't entirely disagree with some of your points, however, they are not what the recent discussion has been about. Plainly, a maintainer has unilaterally rejected the addition of rust code to assist with DMA and requested that code be duplicated in every driver (which also ignores the fact that the patch never added rust code to kernel/dma to begin with). It strikes many as strange that the experimental addition of rust-based drivers (greenlit by Linus orignally) has come to a head in this way:

"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."

[uecker]

I think rejecting code in his area is his right as a maintainer of this area (to the extend this is the case, I haven't checked). Also the patch adds a file kernel/dma.rs so I am confused about your comment. I also happen to agree that maintaining multi-language code is a pain and I understand that he does not want this imposed on him. This may make it harder for Rust kernel developers, but I can not see how this is "sabotage of the project".

[steveklabnik]

> (to the extend this is the case, I haven't checked)

It's not his area.

> Also the patch adds a file kernel/dma.rs so I am confused about your comment.

It adds rust/kernel/dma.rs, not kernel/dma. That is, it adds that file here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/rust/kernel not here: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/kernel/dma

[uecker]

If it is not his area, he should have no power to stop it anyway, so it is even more strange to call it "sabotage". Or has any kernel developer the right to nack anything? This seems unlikely to me. So then it is just some disagreement.

[steveklabnik]

You have to remember that Linux development isn't done like most open source projects where there's one upstream tree everyone sends patches to. Linus pulls in whatever code he wants. A nack means that Hellwig won't pull it into his tree, but that doesn't mean it can't go in someone else's, and end up upstream anyway. The only reason he was even cc'd on the patch is because he's the relevant subsystem maintainer being wrapped, as a courtesy.

[uecker]

As I said, the idea that this is then "sabotage" is completely ridiculous and just shows how toxic this maintainer was that now removed himself.

[steveklabnik]

> I think the accusations from the Rust side that the project is "sabotaged" or "non-technical arguments" etc. are a typical symptom of denial.

When someone says

> You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this.

Against the decision that the project made, that is very straightforwardly sabotage.

> All the hype and enthusiasm related to Rust is that you can just write something easily in C instead of Rust (or rewrite) and then all problems related to safety are solved.

You cannot accuse others of being hyperbolic and then be so yourself. No serious person claims that it’s easy or that it solves all issues.

I don’t really even want to engage with this rest of this post, honestly it says more about you than about Rust.

[uecker]

Well, people definitely often claim that Rust solves all memory safety issues (not true) and they also often neglect to carefully distinguish between memory safety and other safety issues (e.g. already in terminology "safe language").