Time to step up, Linus/GregKH

The text you quoted from my previous comment was in response to "the oppositional stance of the maintainers is extremely difficult to make sense of from a purely-technical standpoint". If a maintainer raising technical issues in patches is "difficult to make sense of from a purely-technical standpoint", maintainers might as well pack up and go shopping.

> those being that adding the Rust bindings uncovered ambiguities and whatnot in the C interface.

Don't think they really "uncovered" anything, the maintainer was already aware of the issues and explained them to the patch author.

> But when a maintainer then refuses to engage with the reporter (and instead replies with the kernel ML's equivalent of the "Everything's fine" meme GIFs that's ubiquitous on the 'net) the case ceases to be a *technical* problem in the strict sense of that word.

Having witnessed that discussion first-hand, I disagree that the maintainer refused to engage with the patch author. There was clearly a communication breakdown, the maintainer isn't solely responsible for that though. Communication is a two-way street.

Do you have a reference to back up the "Everything's fine" claim? My recollection is more like "the patches can't be merged due to these issues", which doesn't imply "everything's fine".