Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 2:22 UTC (Fri) by dralley (subscriber, #143766)
In reply to: Rambling by quotemstr
Parent article: Resistance to Rust abstractions for DMA mapping

That's perhaps a touch hyperbolic, but the point remains that this is a project deliberately invited and cultivated by Linus and Greg KH, and a single maintainer shouldn't get to arbitrarily "veto" 3+ years down the line just because they feel like it, without providing an even slightly reasonable justification, and doing so in an incredibly flippant and disrespectful way.

The rules of engagement are already so heavily tilted in favor of the existing maintainers. At some point this just looks like guarding a fiefdom from "newcomers". Not a great attitude for the long-term health of the kernel.

Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 4:52 UTC (Fri) by jbowen (subscriber, #113501) [Link]

And doing so on v8 of the patchset

Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 8:43 UTC (Fri) by intelfx (subscriber, #130118) [Link] (7 responses)

> a single maintainer shouldn't get to arbitrarily "veto" 3+ years down the line just because they feel like it, without providing an even slightly reasonable justification, and doing so in an incredibly flippant and disrespectful way.

I think we have our justification:

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

As I read it, this is indeed an explicit attempt to veto the entire project.

Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 9:09 UTC (Fri) by MKesper (subscriber, #38539) [Link] (6 responses)

"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. ... I do not want it anywhere near a huge C code base that I need to
maintain."

No comment needed, I guess.

Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 9:28 UTC (Fri) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118) [Link] (5 responses)

Oh well, let's thank Mr Hellwig for his huge contribution to Linux until now, and wish him success in his new endeavours beyond the kernel project.

Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 10:10 UTC (Fri) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link] (4 responses)

I think you overestimate the amount of capable kernel maintainers who can replace him.

Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 12:38 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> I think you overestimate the amount of capable kernel maintainers who can replace him.

Not to mention overestimating the nature of what can be done when you're not actually _employed_ by the ones wanting the changes.

Rambling

Posted Feb 2, 2025 3:02 UTC (Sun) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (2 responses)

Frankly, I am starting to believe that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. The patch is now on version 11[1]. As far as I can tell, none of the responses to versions 9 through 11 contain any acknowledgement whatsoever that Christoph nacked version 8. Version 9 did introduce a MAINTAINERS entry for the new Rust stuff, despite Christoph specifically saying he didn't want another maintainer.

In other words, it would seem that everyone has tacitly agreed to totally ignore Christoph's objections, add maintainers for the Rust code, and move on as if nothing happened. Perhaps this comment section should do the same.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250123104333.134...

Rambling

Posted Feb 2, 2025 7:48 UTC (Sun) by intelfx (subscriber, #130118) [Link] (1 responses)

> Frankly, I am starting to believe that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. The patch is now on version 11[1]. As far as I can tell, none of the responses to versions 9 through 11 contain any acknowledgement whatsoever that Christoph nacked version 8. Version 9 did introduce a MAINTAINERS entry for the new Rust stuff, despite Christoph specifically saying he didn't want another maintainer.

As I understand, all three subsequent submissions (on January 21st and 23rd) happened well before the NAK (January 28th), so it doesn't seem like there is any final resolution to this story yet.

You're right, however, that it likely won't be helped by flaming in the LWN comment section.

Rambling

Posted Feb 2, 2025 18:22 UTC (Sun) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link]

To me this sounds more like sides digging in before the real fight begins. Having said that, I do think—as someone with not very deep insight into kernel development dynamics—this is likely to be merged in one form or another, which is what the patch submitters are also counting on by continuing to develop it. And the "fight" may turn out to be over before it begins if Linus pulls the series, but... I actually suspect someone intervening to force a short discussion instead of just a fiat could be a better outcome for the community. Even if someone is behaving unreasonably, it might be better to take it as a scream for help.

Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 10:13 UTC (Fri) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link]

You can invite and cultivate whatever you want, but you can't give extra work to people who don't want extra work.

Rambling

Posted Jan 31, 2025 15:48 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (guest, #33263) [Link]

>At some point this just looks like guarding a fiefdom from "newcomers".

The pre-git and LWN history is not as detailed as the coverage in this decade, so judging who was a "newcomer" back then is difficult. But looking at code/topics, there have been at least two where entire subsystems were reverted/removed, something that I suspect would not happen with active-and-experienced participants.

devfs - https://lwn.net/Articles/139595/
IDE rewrites - https://lwn.net/Articles/8123/