Behold, a Linux maintainer openly admitting to attempting to sabotage the entire Rust for Linux project:
https://lwn.net/ml/all/20250131075751.GA16720@lst.de/
The good news is this doesn’t affect drm/asahi, our GPU driver. The bad news is it does affect all the other drivers we’re (re)writing in Rust, two so far with a third one coming.
Another choice quote, calling R4L “cancer”: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250128092334.GA28548@lst.de/
Personally, I would consider this grounds for removal of Christoph from the Linux project on Code of Conduct violation grounds, but sadly I doubt much will happen other than draining a lot of people’s energy and will to continue the project until Linus says “fuck you” or something.
As for how to move forward, if I were one of the Rust maintainers, I would just merge the patch (which does not touch code formally maintained by the dissenter). Either Linus takes the pull, and whatever Christoph says is irrelevant, or he doesn’t, and R4L dies. Everything else is a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
Edit: Sent in my 2 cents: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2b9b75d1-eb8e-494a-b05f-59f75c92e6ae@marcan.st/T/#m1944b6d485070970e359bbc7baa71b04c86a30af
Ok, this is made to sound worse than it is. You guys really huff too much drama.
Phrasing.
A Linux maintainer wants to keep quality high. Objects to adding complexity to codebase.
Right or wrong, we want the maintainers focused on quality and maintainability.
Is rust more maintainable than C?
If you’re a C developer who doesn’t know Rust, no.
Well this code would be maintained by developers who know rust, so it sounds like a good merge to me!
Does the rust code not depend on any C code?
It’s not so simple to say “it’s separate” if there are still dependencies and if the rust code can be broken by C changes.
I’m not defending either position.
Looks like Paolo served you a slice of humble pie there at the end.
Please keep this kind of FUD elsewhere, thank you.
I sincerely hope your reply in the mailing list was satire .
I get the feeling that it would be more feasible to build a separate kernel at this point. Its a lot of work, but adding another option to the comparatively small array of kernel options that we have might actually be a good idea -and in doing so, it word demonstrate r4l’s willingness to maintain the project long-term. There’s no need for this pissy behaviour, and there’s no need to take the drama to social media.
I can’t wait for Brodie to report on this!
Reading the whole thread seemed like a boomer crying that young people are ruin8ng stuff by adding new fangled stuff to their perfect utopian bloat.
„Why don’t you like that thing that I like!?”
it’s often the people saying “don’t listen to all the drama” that are making drama.
chill out. the guy has relevant concerns, and they matter deeply to him. …and they matter deeply to us, the users of Linux. Rust in the kernel is a good step forward, but processes need to be in place not just for code, but for people who will be dealing with a new language in their formerly-c-only environment.
win hearts and minds, don’t just kick the nest and blame the hornets if they sting you. recognize needs, even of those who are stubborn, and address them.
