this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
367 points (98.2% liked)

Open Source

33247 readers
256 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 34 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

To be fair, I'm not sure how "I will do everything in my power to oppose this" is the anti-Rust side "work[ing] towards some resolution"...

[–] Gayhitler@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

That’s tame for the kernel mailing list lol.

The context is that hellwig doesn’t want another maintainer or deal with a split codebase in the dma subsystem which I honestly agree with.

If I were a maintainer in that position I’d be barring the doors too. It’s not a driver for some esoteric realtek wireless card or something.

Even if I didn’t agree with that position it’s normal to only post on the kernel mailing list about shit you actually care deeply about because it’s public and aside from all your fellow devs taking the time to read what you wrote, psychotic nerds like myself watch it and will try to read the tea leaves too!

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If I were a maintainer in that position I’d be barring the doors too. It’s not a driver for some esoteric realtek wireless card or something.

This effectively kills R4L. If they can't include Rust Interfaces for important subsystems, each driver written in Rust that uses these subsystems has to separately track all the Subsystem Interfaces, leading to lots of extra work for no benefit.

If this is the approach Linux takes, they should just cancel R4L completely.

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, I don't think it's like toxic or anything, but I also understand why Martin viewed the situation as an impasse requiring a decision from on high. Also, from my limited understanding it sounds like the new code was in a sequestered rust-only section of the dma subsystem, so I'm not clear on exactly what new burdens were being placed on the C dma maintainers.

[–] Gayhitler@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

My understanding is that the rust code in question implemented parts of the c dma interface so that rust programs could use that instead of the c dma interface.

I’m out in the world, not sitting in front of a computer with the source open so that guess will have to do for now.

The most immediate problem with having two different dma interfaces is that now you have two maintainers and an extra step at best when making any changes.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/293df3d54bad446e8fd527f204c6dc301354e340.camel@mailbox.org/

General idea seems to be "keep your glue outside of core subsystems", not "do not create cross-language glue, I will do everything in my power to oppose this".

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This creates a lot of extra work for no benefit, as every driver that needs DMA would have to include their own copy of the DMA stuff.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They still can share code. Just not maintained by dma.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Nobody asked for the code to be maintained by DMA. The maintainer blocked a PR outside his subsystem, and even if it was part of his subsystem, the R4L approach is that C developers can break Rust code however they want.

Literally nobody suggested that the DMA maintainers should maintain Rust code.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago