193
Linus responds to Hellwig - "the pull request you objected to DID NOT TOUCH THE DMA LAYER AT ALL... if you as a maintainer feel that you control who or what can use your code, YOU ARE WRONG." (lore.kernel.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hellwig is the maintainer of the DMA subsystem. Hellwig previously blocked rust bindings for DMA code, which in part resulted in Hector Martin from stepping down as a kernel maintainer and eventually Asahi Linux as a whole.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I do understand that that's what they claim. I just don't believe them. Because it requires either

  1. magical Rust maintainers who are always on call to help, or
  2. people to be on with the Rust code breaking all the time.

Neither seems likely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    What's there not to believe? If Rust gets broken, either someone will fix it, or the kernel releases with broken Rust. Where's the issue?

    It's such a strange position to take.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    or the kernel releases with broken Rust

    This is what I don't believe. I think what will actually happen (or could at least), is:

    C dev that refuses the learn Rust: "Hi, here's a change to the DMA API."

    Linus: "Can you fix the Rust code before I merge this?"

    C dev: "Ok, Rust devs it's your job - can you fix it?"

    Rust devs: ""

    C dev: "Hello? Where are you?"

    ...

    C dev: "Can we just merge it now?"

    Linus: "No we need to fix the Rust."

    Again, to be 100% clear, I think that this shouldn't block Rust. We should just expect the C devs to learn a bit of Rust (seriously if they're writing Linux DMA systems they are easily bright enough to do it). But pretending that they won't have to to keep them happy seems disingenuous.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Okay? And why are you imagining things would go down like that, when the policy is specifically not doing it this way? When this issue hasn't occurred so far?

    Rust is disabled by default, so it's not like it would be harder to build a kernel when it's broken. Seriously, I just don't get why you're imagining these things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And why are you imagining things would go down like that

    Because I am familiar with human behaviour.

    Rust is disabled by default

    I'm not too familiar with Linux's CI system but I assume they at least test that it compiles, even if it is disabled by default.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Because I am familiar with human behaviour.

    Human behavior doesn't dictate that a Linux kernel with failing Rust builds wouldn't get published.

    I’m not too familiar with Linux’s CI system but I assume they at least test that it compiles, even if it is disabled by default.

    Yes, the systems would notice that something broke. Those systems have no say in whether something gets released.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent