Extra work?
Extra work?
Posted Jan 31, 2025 10:59 UTC (Fri) by gioele (subscriber, #61675)In reply to: Rambling by LtWorf
Parent article: Resistance to Rust abstractions for DMA mapping
What extra work does this patch (and similar ones) impose on the maintainer?
(Sincere question from an external observer.)
That patch adds (what amounts to) a new client of one of the APIs that the maintainer manages, with the additional explicit reassurance that the API is free to evolve in any way, and the patch submitter will bear the costs of adapting their client to the new API. No code in the API or in the subsystem managed by the maintainer is or will be changed.
The only work for the maintainer is asked to do is to do a final check to ensure that the patch submitter got the finer details of the API correct (the patch was already on its 8th revision, so most of the checks have already been done by other developers). Answering such a request from client of your API does not count as "more work", does it?
(Please correct me if I got any of these details wrong.)
Posted Jan 31, 2025 15:47 UTC (Fri)
by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
[Link] (2 responses)
But in practice he can't really change API and break Rust and leave it at that. The whole change will be held back for release, so in practice he can't do it.
Posted Jan 31, 2025 18:09 UTC (Fri)
by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935)
[Link]
Posted Feb 5, 2025 5:23 UTC (Wed)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link]
Code, not maintained by him, breaks, and holds up a release.
If Linus, who is responsible for releases, complains, that makes sense to me. But not Hellwig.
Per the article, he said he is blocking it because he doesn't want a multi-language kernel. We should take him at his word.
Extra work?
Extra work?
Extra work?
This really shouldn't hold up anything on his end at all.