Yes, literally include the wrapper code in every rust driver that needs it then when you push the wrapper on its own you can say “this code is currently duplicated 900 times because there isn’t a rust wrapper” not “this would make it easier for hypothetical rust drivers that might hypothetically exist in the future” and no one will bat an eye!
That’s how you get things added to the kernel!
If it was about adding rust code to the kernel, which is what r4l universally says they’re doing, then they’d be taking that approach instead of farting around with the chicken and egg problem trying to get rust everything first.
That’s the whole point of the part of my comment that you dismissed out of hand. They’re nearly universally behaving in a way that it takes actual concerted brainpower to read as anything other than duplicitous.
And then when people say “hey, why don’t you not act like that” you get responses like “Linus said we could!” And “nontechnical nonsense” and “Dino devs”.
Yes, literally include the wrapper code in every rust driver that needs it then when you push the wrapper on its own you can say “this code is currently duplicated 900 times because there isn’t a rust wrapper” not “this would make it easier for hypothetical rust drivers that might hypothetically exist in the future” and no one will bat an eye!
That is what they are already doing and it’s introducing unnecessary work! There’s nothing about “hypothetical rust drivers”, it’s the case right now.
That’s how you get things added to the kernel!
Weird, how come C drivers don’t have to track these interfaces in their own trees? Why is this the way to get Rust code added to the kernel, but all other code doesn’t have to jump through these hoops?
I’m not at a computer with the source on it, so if you get to it before me, how many rust drivers are there? How many that would use the rust dma wrapper?
I ask because last year there were relatively few.
People writing in c don’t have to use a wrapper because there’s no need to wrap c code for use by other c code.
More broadly there are times when duplicated c code has been condensed into a library or something and added to the kernel.
I’m not at a computer with the source on it, so if you get to it before me, how many rust drivers are there? How many that would use the rust dma wrapper?
… of course there aren’t many Rust drivers so far, since the project is still young, and it’s evidently still facing hurdles and not really accepted by everyone. But if there’s already a couple of Rust drivers and Rust has explicitly been accepted into the Kernel, we’re already past your “this would make it easier for hypothetical rust drivers that might hypothetically exist in the future”, so why argue such irrelevant points?
More broadly there are times when duplicated c code has been condensed into a library or something and added to the kernel.
Yes, literally include the wrapper code in every rust driver that needs it then when you push the wrapper on its own you can say “this code is currently duplicated 900 times because there isn’t a rust wrapper” not “this would make it easier for hypothetical rust drivers that might hypothetically exist in the future” and no one will bat an eye!
That’s how you get things added to the kernel!
If it was about adding rust code to the kernel, which is what r4l universally says they’re doing, then they’d be taking that approach instead of farting around with the chicken and egg problem trying to get rust everything first.
That’s the whole point of the part of my comment that you dismissed out of hand. They’re nearly universally behaving in a way that it takes actual concerted brainpower to read as anything other than duplicitous.
And then when people say “hey, why don’t you not act like that” you get responses like “Linus said we could!” And “nontechnical nonsense” and “Dino devs”.
I don’t think that’s a broken foundation.
That is what they are already doing and it’s introducing unnecessary work! There’s nothing about “hypothetical rust drivers”, it’s the case right now.
Weird, how come C drivers don’t have to track these interfaces in their own trees? Why is this the way to get Rust code added to the kernel, but all other code doesn’t have to jump through these hoops?
I’m not at a computer with the source on it, so if you get to it before me, how many rust drivers are there? How many that would use the rust dma wrapper?
I ask because last year there were relatively few.
People writing in c don’t have to use a wrapper because there’s no need to wrap c code for use by other c code.
More broadly there are times when duplicated c code has been condensed into a library or something and added to the kernel.
… of course there aren’t many Rust drivers so far, since the project is still young, and it’s evidently still facing hurdles and not really accepted by everyone. But if there’s already a couple of Rust drivers and Rust has explicitly been accepted into the Kernel, we’re already past your “this would make it easier for hypothetical rust drivers that might hypothetically exist in the future”, so why argue such irrelevant points?
And that’s what has been blocked here…