Hacker News Reader

Comment by arp242 | Hacker News Reader

> Okay, sorry. He just said there should be no rust in the kernel.

That's also not what he said; it's "no Rust in kernel/dma". He pretty much explicitly said it's okay for drivers to do their thing in Rust, but with their own wrappers. You can consider that dumb, but you can't shorten that to "no Rust in the kernel".

And "I replied to your objections, therefore the matter is settled" is arrogant beyond belief. People can disagree, you know, because they have different priorities, different preferences, different perspectives, etc.

View on HN

No he did say he doesn’t want rust in Linux at all. Now I understand that he didn’t say “I won’t allow rust to be in Linux”, which is a useful distinction to make. But let’s not pretend like he didn’t say “rust shouldn’t be in Linux” at all.

https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250204052916.GA28741@lst.de/

He literally said this:

> 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/

> That's also not what he said; it's "no Rust in kernel/dma". He pretty much explicitly said it's okay for drivers to do their thing in Rust, but with their own wrappers. You can consider that dumb, but you can't shorten that to "no Rust in the kernel".

Have you actually taken a look at the patch?

There was NO RUST CODE ADDED TO kernel/dma, they wanted to add a dma wrapper to a rust/ folder.

> 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.

https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250204052916.GA28741@lst.de/

He said no Rust (or any other language except C) in any core code. Notably the patch was not eve being added to kernel/dma

I think he even hates non-C code in the drivers, he just cares less about that. But his position is that kernel maintenance will only work longterm if it's all a single language (C).

> "I replied to your objections, therefore the matter is settled" is arrogant beyond belief. People can disagree, you know, because they have different priorities, different preferences, different perspectives, etc.

I'm sorry for not being clearer, but that is specifically not what is going on. The objections were of factual, technical nature. As in, "do not do X". The problem is that the code in question was not doing X, and it was not doing anything that could be construed as doing X. The objections did not arise from differences in priorities, preferences, or perspectives, they were just factually wrong.

please stop spreading such highly misleading nonsense. look at what is black and white. blindly defending such toxic people is not doing linux any good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com