Where? Because "keep the wrappers in your code" and "do that in your driver so that you have to do it instead of spreading this" doesn't sound like that.
>Every additional bit that 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 completely breaks this. You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this.
I think that clearly means he is out to sabotage any other language than C making it into Linux.
> I do not want it anywhere near a huge C code base that I need to maintain.
Link to mailing list: https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250131075751.GA16720@lst.de/
This was also on a patch that did "keep the wrappers in [rust-folder, not DMA] code". Arp242's interpretation isn't just belied by the direct words of the maintainer, it's belied by the fact that the code the maintainer rejected was exactly what Arp242 is suggesting the maintainer was asking for.
The fact that he is using his powers as maintainer of the DMA module to prevent Rust code from being added, with the explicit goal of making it harder to develop Rust drivers so that maybe the Rust-for-Linux project might get abandoned is an explicit act of sabotage against the R4L project (no one is saying he is sabotaging the Linux project itself).
In contrast, even accepting the "two languages bad" perspective, you can't call the R4L project "sabotage" in the same way, because they are clearly not intending to prevent or break anything in the Linux kernel, even if you think they will end up doing so as this maintainer does.
This is a misinterpretation of the facts. It's not actually up to Hellwig whether or not the patch gets accepted; the relevant maintainer that would merge the patch is somebody else.
He's totally within his right to express his opinion in a NACK.
When it became clear that wasn't an option, they decided to put it somewhere else, but since he'd been consulted, he still wanted to make it clear he isn't ok with the patch regardless of where the files go or any other aspect of it; but you're right that he is not the final authority on what code goes into that new subpath.
I never said in any way that he doesn't have a right to his opinion. Just that he is explicitly and vehemently opposed to Rust in the kernel, and to anything that makes that easier to happen.
If any of
> Every additional bit that 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 completely breaks this.
is correct, he is actually fighting against sabotage.
edit for readability
> 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.