Hacker News Reader

Comment by arp242 | Hacker News Reader

"R4L dies" is hyperbolic nonsense. There are many ways/places to integrate Rust in the kernel, even for wrappers. It's not like "I think this code should be someone else" automatically means the death of Rust.

Marcan goes full nuclear every other time someone disagrees with him. He's very much the "if it's not my preferred way then we might as well not do it at all"-type of engineer (many of us have worked with those people).

View on HN

Rust is only allowed for drivers, because that sidesteps the platform support questions.

DMA is needed for an overwhelming number of useful drivers.

If you can’t use DMA from Rust, then you can’t really properly evaluate the usefulness of Rust, hence the effort is basically dead.

People can just include their own dma.rs in driver/.../mydriver/

Whether that's a good or bad approach is besides the point. It's what was suggested as an alternative, and clearly it's something that would work. "You can't use DMA from Rust" is just not true.

If it was a good approach, the C folks would have copied around C files instead of having common core code. They did not do that though, because it'd be counter productive due to increasing maintenance burden.

Everyone knows it would increase maintenance burden, decrease reliability, and increase the amount of apparent churn of rust code in the linux kernel.

Everyone knows you could start the crude way today and refactor the duplication later after it proves itself, if you actually wanted to proceed rather than throw fits.

You can't just endlessly dump more busywork on Rust developers (including genuinely bad code practices) and expect them to deal with it.

There is zero good reason to duplicate that code and refactor it later.

I don't know the better way to ask this question, so I'm just going to ask it:

"Congratulations, you're right, and nobody cares."

Now what? Just complain that the kernel isn't hospitable to Rust, and hope 15 years from now we're all using some Linux-compatible kernel built ground-up in Rust?

I genuinely want to know where you go from this position.

I am trying to explain why someone would say this.

I think Rust in Linux makes sense, but honestly, Rust doesn’t need Linux to be successful, and I barely use Linux personally. If they decide Rust for Linux is not a thing, that’s for the folks who work on and care about Linux to deal with. This isn’t my fight, I am just observing.

I’ve been primarily a Windows user for many years now, but I do use some WSL. My main OS is already shipping Rust, and in the actual kernel, without all of this wailing and gnashing of teeth. (That said I respect the approach Linux is taking here, I don't think it's inherently bad.)

Oh, and honestly, what I believe is happening here is just that, from Linus's perspective, folks should know that because this isn't in Hellwig's part of the tree, his NACK doesn't actually matter, and he'll just end up pulling this patch in anyway. There's no need to intervene because there isn't actually obstruction going on. The internet is just going wild about this drama because they fundamentally misunderstand how kernel development works, and because people are slinging mud on the LKML. That's why he only commented on Hector's behavior.

I can see that perspective, though I would prefer a different management style, but that's also why (among other reasons) I don't care to contribute to the kernel.

> 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.

https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250131075751.GA16720@lst.de/

Maybe you can try to read what Christoph Hellwig said first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com