Linux

As a programmer who integrates many languages together in the same product this is a pretty clear line in the sand. Where the languages interface, it's up to the new language to adopt the interfaces offered by the older language. Rust guys said they will do this, C guys said why don't you assume this responsibility (they already are). This is either a miscommunication or deliberate scape goat reasoning and deflection. There is no good reason why two languages can't work together with interfaces. I think the C guys are old, grumpy and fearful.

Disclaimer: I don't even like Rust as a language. Just calling it how I see it.

His point could be valid, if C was working fine and Rust didn't fix it. But C isn't working fine and Rust is the first actual solution we've ever had.

He's just an old man saying we can't have cars on the road because they'll scare the horses.

I am not a programmer. If you showed me C code and called it Rust, or vice versa, I would probably not be able to tell the difference. As such I'm not going to focus on technical merits or demerits, I'll focus on what people say.

This is relevant:

• [Danilo Krummrich] What does "your code" mean? Duplicated in every driver?
• [Christoph Hellwig] Yes, interfaces to the DMA API should stay in readable C code and not in weird bindings so that it reminds greppable and maintainable.
• [DK] Rust drivers shouldn't use C APIs directly, but rather use an abstraction of the corresponding C API.
• [CH] Don't force me to deal with your shiny language of the day.
• [DK] Again, no one asks you to deal with or maintain this piece of Rust code.
• [CH] Maintaining multi-language projects is a pain I have no interest in dealing with. If you want to use something that's not C, be that assembly or rust you write to C interfaces and deal with the impedence mismatch yourself as far as I'm concerned.
• [DK] This is exactly what we're doing and proposing here, isn't it? // We wrote a single piece of Rust code that abstracts the C API for all Rust drivers, which we offer to maintain ourselves. // What else are you asking for?
• [DK] Since there hasn't been a reply so far, I assume that we're good with maintaining the DMA Rust abstractions separately. // Hence, the next version of this patch series will have the corresponding maintainer entry.

What I take from this interaction is that Hellwig is not really picking a bone against Rust; his main concern is introducing new languages into the kernel and reducing its maintainability. And IMO Krummrich's answer up to the second-to-last reply was really great - addressing the complain by highlighting that C developers won't need to bother with that chunk of Rust code. (That last reply was awful, though.)

Based on this interaction I think that I agree with 5714 in this thread, that Hellwig might be overreaching.

So far, so good. What Hector Martin is doing there is something else. He is not selling the merits of the project Rust4Linux, he's simply creating drama, by distorting Hellwig's position from "don't bring new languages into the kernel" into some sort of personal crusade against Rust.

And it's rather "curious" how he brings up the CoC as some sort of rubber stick to bash people with, but omits which part of the CoC Hellwig would allegedly have violated.

[@raulinbonn] @marcan He does use the proper name shortly afterwards, but calling it "the another language" instead of just Rust sounds already quite loaded and belittling really. As if trying not to even acknowledge its proper name and existence.

Relevant tidbit: "the another language" sounds like a word-by-word translation from German "die andere Sprache". It doesn't really sound dismissive in German (Hellwig is clearly a German speaker.)

"As if trying not to even acknowledge its proper name and existence." - okay... now the user is assuming = making shit up. It's perfectly possible that Hellwig simply didn't call it "Rust" to focus on the fact that his problem is not against Rust, but against a mixed language codebase - the complete opposite of what raulinbonn is assuming.

The original entry from the mailing list this is all about:

On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:33:22PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: I accept that you don't want to be involved with Rust in the kernel, which is why we offered to maintain the Rust abstraction layer for the DMA coherent allocator as a separate component (which it would be anyways) ourselves.

Which doesn't help me a bit. Every additional bit that the another language creeps in drastically reduces the maintainability of the kernel as an integrated project. The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language complely breaks this. You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this. This is NOT because I hate Rust. While not my favourite language it's definitively one of the best new ones and I encourage people to use it for new projects where it fits. I do not want it anywhere near a huge C code base that I need to maintain.

Everytime i read a transcript from kernel devs arguing i think it takes a day off my life.

A fanatic microblogger* inflating some kernel drama, and inviting the microblog echo chamber and the whole internet gantry to chime in.. is surely worthy of being the hottest topic of the day.

* Yes, I know who they are.

I'm personally on board with the comment left by @[email protected]. I think marcan is unnecessarily escalating this situation and I'd hardly describe Christoph's behavior as sabotage. He does appear to have a real technical concern regarding maintainability and I think discussing that concern is more productive than dismissing it and calling him a saboteur.

In this thread, much the same as in any discussion of the topic, we learn that Rust is vital to the survival of the Linux kernel and we're surely doomed without it, and that the absence of languages other than C in the Linux kernel is the only thing preventing the demons of chaos from arising to tear our souls to shreds and we must remain pure.

The push to force rust into linux feels weirdly inauthentic. I'm guessing the build chain has been appropriately compromised to add backdoors at build time.

Everything else is distractions orchestrated by a subset of saboteur maintainers who are trying to demoralize you until you give up, because they know they're going to be on the losing side of history sooner or later.

This isn't true though, he stated his motivation clearly.

Good grief. People like this Chris dude hold progress back. I'll keep banging the drum (to be heard by not a single kernel dev, but anyway): the linux kernel need 90% of the Linux Foundation's funding, not a mere 2%. There should be so many people wanting to be a maintainer that people who openly declare that they want to get in the way like this are easier to remove.

Anti Commercial-AI license

Is no one saying something because Christoph H. is just overreaching?

You know as someone so far removed from kernel development as I am I have to say that Rust devs are the most annoying fanboys there are and ngl if this kills R4L I won't even notice aside from those drama threads dissappearing. Just write your own Kernel in Rust if you must. With Blackjack and Hookers.