> Rust isn't a "replacement for C"

Hmm I think to clarify I would say that Rust _is_ intended as a replacement for C in general, but that this isn't how the Linux kernel developers are choosing to use it.

As for why the kernel developers would choose Rust, I would think another one of the primary benefits is that the type system guarantees the absence of a wide class of memory-related errors that are prevalent in C, and this type system (as well as those of its predecessors) has been subjected to significant scrutiny by the academic community over the last couple of decades to help iron out problems. I suspect this is also part of why Rust has a relatively large and passionate community compared to other C alternatives.