In general, upstreaming code to Linux involves interacting with difficult and sometimes outright hostile people. I've certainly had my share of both with much smaller changes. IMO pushing something like R4L requires very thick skin and almost infinite amount of patience. Bitching about that won't get you far, you need to be able to either work with or around those people.
This again gets back to the main point which you keep misrepresenting. This has nothing to do with a thick skin, this is a core subsystem maintainer outright saying they won't support R4L, which means its dead.
I'm not misrepresenting anything and R4L is not dead. In fact, two ways forward where suggested right in the LKLM email thread:
- Send the series directly to Linus since there is no code that Hellwig is maintainer of is actually being changed by it and let Linus decide whether to ignore Hellwig's nack. Linus may have done so before, but likely not after marcan's public meltdown.
- Copy/paste the code to every driver that will be using it. If it becomes useful, it will cause more pressure on Hellwig down the road because people will question why every change in code that is being wrapped by this is causing a fix in 10 different copies.
People here and on Reddit who are unfamiliar with the Linux development process but are attracted to the "drama" because it involves Rust somehow keep missing it.
> No, it is not the entire point. No one is really doubting whether you can write a driver in Rust, C++ or Swift. The whole experiment is whether you can slowly move in to existing mature kernel subsystems without being too disruptive.
Which Chris did doubt, as a way to gatekeep Rust (as you misrepresented, and which is clearly visible in the LKML thread).
regardless, back to the other stuff:
First point: Which is what was suggested as well in the LKML and still does not really solve the problem, which is not TECHNICAL but POLITICAL.
Second point: Obvious, and wasteful, and again is thus a political move which is the entire point of this entire saga. It isn't about drama, its about the political aspect of the kernel dev being tiring and wasteful.
> Which Chris did doubt, as a way to gatekeep Rust (as you misrepresented, and which is clearly visible in the LKML thread).
Can you provide the exact quote where Hellwig is suggesting that it is impossible to write a driver in Rust? No, you can't? So who exactly is misrepresenting here?
> regardless, back to the other stuff: First point: Which is what was suggested as well in the LKML and still does not really solve the problem, which is not TECHNICAL but POLITICAL. Second point: Obvious, and wasteful, and again is thus a political move which is the entire point of this entire saga. It isn't about drama, its about the political aspect of the kernel dev being tiring and wasteful.
You are shifting the goalpost from this making R4L "dead" to the way forward being "tiring and wasteful". It doesn't look like you are arguing in a good faith so I won't participate in the discussion with you anymore.
