[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.

[pulsartwin]

There are multiple comments that meet the exact definition of sabotage. If this:

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

is not intent to sabotage (even if it might not be successful as Linus could pull in the patch anyway), then what possibly could be?

Pointing out the ridiculousness of comments like this and suggesting the R4L folks push forward while ignoring them doesn't scream toxicity. Refusing to compromise with the R4L devs and calling the additions a 'cancer' has expectedly caused a stir.