382

'Maybe the problem is you' ... Linus Torvalds wades into Linux kernel Rust driver drama (www.theregister.com)

submitted 4 months ago by ray@lemmy.ml to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] semperverus@lemmy.world 101 points 4 months ago

I am so glad Linus just came out and said it. I was pretty upset at Hector too in the other thread the other day, and I especially didn't appreciate a call to remove a major developer from the kernel because Hector wasn't getting his way. Very militant action on Hector's part where it just wasn't necessary.

Hector, if you're reading this, communication skills are just as if not more important than your Rust development skills, and frankly your communication skills lack.

[+] catloaf@lemm.ee -11 points 4 months ago

So now we've lost a very good developer, and the question of rust in the kernel remains unresolved. This is the worst possible outcome.

[-] semperverus@lemmy.world 72 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Part of being a good developer is the "working well with other human beings" part. Linus himself took a hiatus to improve himself in this area.

Another part of being a good developer is to work within and adapting to the frameworks of an existing project, especially if you are joining at a later point. In this context, it would be the R4L folks joining the project known as "the Linux kernel."

Hector failed on both counts. He has programming skills, but that's not all that's required.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 14 points 4 months ago

Sure, and part of being a good manager is to, you know, manage. It shouldn't have gotten to the point that marcan is going outside the list to try to get something done. Linus (or someone else with authority, I'm not familiar with who else is managing it) should have stepped in much earlier to head off the drama. It was a very simple question.

Rust in the kernel is already established and part of the mainline kernel. It's extremely pretty and wholly inappropriate to reject code just because it's written in rust.

[-] semperverus@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

If you had read Christoph's reasoning, it wasn't "just because it's written in Rust." He actually gave some decent technical reasoning for it that went beyond his original personal outburst (which I hold him to the same standard as Hector for, but he did shore up later and fixed his communication).

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 months ago

How do you figure?

The only two "technical" arguments I could see were firstly that code should

[remain] greppable and maintainable

which unless I'm missing something boils down to "I don't speak Rust", and secondly that

The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language complely breaks this

which unless I'm missing something boils down to "I don't speak Rust", because ain't nobody trying to add any other languages to the Linux code base.

Surely this can't be the "decent technical reasoning" you are referring to? I have to admit I don't follow kernel development that closely, but I was under the impression that integrating Rust into the code base was a long discussed initiative having the "official" blessing of the higher ups among the maintainers by now, so it seems odd to see it opposed in such harsh terms by a subsystem maintainer here:

I absolutely support using Rust in new codebase, but I do not at all in Linux.

[-] DacoTaco@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You and i read different things. I hated how he worded them, but his arguments at greppable and understandable are valid arguments that go beyond rust and if he can read it or not or refuses to.
Mixing languages in a part of a project brings complexity and is often a huge ass nono because it makes things unreadable and hard to manage on a large scale.
He also argues that a c interface exists to connect 2 parts of a system. The person that changes the interface should not have to alter the users of that interface, if they do then you get intertwined dependencies, which is a huge ass red flag for developers that something has gone terrible wrong and the project is not going to scale or will be easy to change.
So if he changes the interface, the rust team will need to fix it, specially since they are the minority.
That also doesnt mean he can change it in whatever way without worry, it is an interface change, that needs discussions and approvals ahead of time ofc.

[-] Muehe@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

You and i read different things.

Apparently we did.

I hated how he worded them, but his arguments at greppable and understandable are valid arguments that go beyond rust and if he can read it or not or refuses to.

I'm failing to see how Rust code is not greppable unless you don't speak Rust.

Mixing languages in a part of a project brings complexity and is often a huge ass nono because it makes things unreadable and hard to manage on a large scale.

An argument which I would acknowledge, but if the decision to do this has been made by the group it still is weird to see it blocked by an individual.

He also argues that a c interface exists to connect 2 parts of a system. The person that changes the interface should not have to alter the users of that interface, [...] So if he changes the interface, the rust team will need to fix it, specially since they are the minority.

Nobody asked Hellwig to do this, in fact Krummrich said several times they would maintain the interface consuming the C code themselves. They just want one common interface for all Rust drivers, instead of replicating the same code in each driver. Which Hellwig never gives a substantial reply to.

That also doesnt mean he can change it in whatever way without worry, it is an interface change, that needs discussions and approvals ahead of time ofc.

Again not how I'm reading that thread. As Krummrich put it:

Surely you can expect maintainers of the Rust abstraction to help with integrating API changes -- this isn't different compared to driver / component maintainers helping with integrating fundamental API changes for their affected driver / component, like you've mentioned videobuf2-dma stuff.