It’s a duplication of functionality in kernel/dma.

That’s why the submitter didn’t say “I didn’t submit to kernel/dma, checkmate libs!”.

The intent is to duplicate functionality in kernel/dma then get it included directly or linked to.

That’s what the r4l project is trying to do explicitly!

Before you say that kernel/dma didn’t have functional easy to use rust bindings, so the commit couldn’t have duplicated functionality: someone on kernel/dma said they didn’t want that and suggested using the c bindings instead which is what every other language has to do. Which means there was already a solution that was functional.

It’s like if there’s a community bicycle and you bring your drill and tap set so you can mount your bottle caddy and the community says “please don’t make a hole we have to tig in. Just use a pipe strap.” The right answer isn’t to start building a whole new down tube you can tap for an m5 for your bottle caddy, it’s to just use a pipe strap for your bottle caddy.

I didn’t read the linked article (or any linked article about this) because I’ve been reading the mailing list. Reporting on the kernel and people’s behavior on the list is tiring and often includes a bunch of baseless speculation.

I don’t think that rust in the kernel is for naught or impeding progress. I think the patterns of expanding the scope of conversation to the absolutely philosophical level that some rust mailing list exchanges have done and kicking decisions up the chain or requesting a set of accommodations be made to the existing processes and methods fall broadly into the tactics outlined in the simple field sabotage manual.

I think it’s that behavior that isn’t going to get anywhere or solve problems.

I don’t think that the kernel codebase has been infected with rust. I think that especially after Linus said “sure, see what happens” to the suggestion of taking in rust work rust devs have been making tons of commits and sometimes it’s accepted, sometimes it’s rejected and often a border is created and there’s friction along it like this example.

Again, so much of the discussion around kernel mailing list exchanges excludes the context that what hellwig is talking about is not rust in the kernel at all or even r4l but a split code base.

I dealt with a c/c++ codebase once and it was beyond my meager abilities to handle both those ostensibly similar languages at the same time and I had people who were very knowledgeable in c involved with the project.

So when someone says “I think a split codebase is cancer to the Linux kernel” or “I will oppose this (split codebase) with all my energy” I’m like “yeah, that makes sense.”

I also need to clarify that I don’t think anyone is sabotaging anyone else and my intent in bringing up the simple field sabotage manual was to point out that the behaviors don’t necessarily indicate sabotage but fall into a broad category of behavior that isn’t gonna solve problems or get anywhere which is why it’s included in the manual.

I wasn’t aware it was circulating in social media recently and about fifteen years ago when I got exposed to it the main lessons to draw were not that people doing those things were active saboteurs but that those behaviors can lead to waste of energy and resources and they’re the first thing to avoid interacting with.

My exposure to and understanding of the manual was “here are some things to avoid in your own life” not “here’s how to throw a wrench into their plans!”

It’s surprising to see that statement get brought up in the news considering it’s immediately followed by a parenthetical specifically enumerating a multi language code base as the subject not rust specifically.

Iirc it’s even preceded by something to the effect of “I like rust, it’s good and there’s nothing wrong with projects that use it”.

The news coverage of kernel mailing list stuff is always so needlessly breathless.

I don’t think the ends are those of the cia, and I didn’t say that the means were either, only that they were similar to those in a famous mid century guide for those trying to halt or hijack organizations.

I don’t think the rust devs are a cia opp, before you ask. I think some rust devs and even proponents of rust who only cheer from the sidelines are sometimes behaving in ways that raise red flags. I think it’s natural and laudable that the existing devs and maintainers are alarmed by that same behavior. It’s their job.

I also think Linus position on rust has been stretched to the point of breaking and I personally find it hard to take positions seriously that distill the complex process of integrating new languages into a very old very large codebase with many full time developers into “Linus said I could”.

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.

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!

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250108122825.136021-1-abdiel.janulgue@gmail.com/

Here’s the source thread.

Tldr: someone wants to put rust in the dma part of the kernel (the part that accesses memory directly)(it’s a memory allocator abstraction layer written in rust which rust code can use directly instead of dealing with the c allocator abstraction layer), is told that rust should use the extant methods to talk to the c dma interface, replies that doing so would make rust programs that talk to dma require some more code, gets told “that’s fine. We can’t do a split codebase”. The two parties work towards some resolution, then hector martin comes in and acts like jerk and gets told to fuck off by Linus.

Martin is no lennart poettering but I don’t try to see things from his perspective anymore.

It’s worth noting that Linus’ “approval” of rust in the kernel isn’t generally seen as a blanket endorsement, but a willingness to see how it might go and rust people have been generally trying to jam their code everywhere using methods that rival the cia simple field sabotage manual.

I don’t think it’s on purpose (except for maybe Martin) but a byproduct of the kernel maintainers moving slowly but surely and the rust developers moving much faster and some seeing the solution to that slow movement as jamming their foot in the door and wedging it open.

Keeping sealed iodine patches and band aids inside my leather wristbands.

Staying on the edge of the pit to catch anyone who falls or takes a hit.

🧷 safetycore 🧷

God bikeshare ebikes suck so much.

Hello, I’d like your worst frame with the cheapest motor, smallest wheels, wrong kind of tires, a sprocket with a non whole number of teeth and uhhhhh lemmie get two years of no maintenance other than a hose off and some touch up paint.

Honestly I think you’re right. A person making the choice about what to own free from any other constraints would be thinking like you. I think Chinas right to push people towards using lead acid on e-bikes in the face of lithium scarcity and trade restrictions too.

It’s just two different situations that indicate different choices.

Apropos of nothing, are you seeing usbc e-bike battery charging coming down the pike? I was seeing some rumblings a few years ago last time I built one.

So I don’t think you don’t have the experience to say the stuff you do, I just have wildly different conclusions from my own experience.

I live in a place that’s 100% hills all the time. I am fat even after spending years cycling to get around. Sure everything below the waist is decent but the orthodontist gut ain’t going nowhere. Almost my entire adult life I’ve smoked cigarettes. I quit and it makes a difference but most of my saddle time is with a smoke hanging out of my mouth.

I carried over fifty pounds of groceries, garbage, equipment, camping gear and anything else you can imagine all the time.

Just about the only time I pushed the bike was when dimensional lumber was too wiggly to ride with.

The hill: checkmate, libtards!

Me, drooling, trying to fit a square block into a round hole: good luck, I’m behind 16 bar ends!

Now e-bike gearing is dogshit for pedaling and I think getting a drivetrain that can actually be operated by hand (or foot) is one of the factors people don’t consider near enough compared to top speed under throttle, but even then it just means you might have to get off and push sooner, not that the bike is unusable and most people around here realize what hills they need to hit at speed in order to make it after a few trips.

I also think your bringing up wheel weight is misleading though probably not on purpose. The wheels inertia has to be overcome before it can be translated into going some direction, so the wheel literally exerts a mechanical advantage against the rider and therefore isn’t comparable to increased weight tied to the frame like a battery.

I don’t think it’s an intentional error of comparison though because focusing on wheel weight is common to do. Its like the number two way to get better acceleration.

It’s doubly tough to defend because batteries aren’t stored in the wheels!

It’s triply tough to defend because at least one ebike wheel has a very high mass to begin with!

The point I was trying to make oh so long ago was that if you have a population that does a lot of cycling, have a bunch of public transportation and need to balance between allocating scarce resources for high density batteries to bikes with a low weight and inbuilt backup drive system or electric vehicles with a high weight and no backup drive it makes perfect sense to push a less energy dense solution on the bikes.

You say it’s better to have a light bike than to have fifty miles more range on an ev, but I think that’s incorrect. There are gonna be applications where the ev is the right choice and evs get more out of that energy density and bikes just don’t.

Okay but you’re not lifting the bike by its chainstay and swinging it around like a claymore or something, you lift at the center of mass, which in an e-bike is at the battery or damn close to it. It’s why they’re all in the triangle or under the rear rack and in the latter case manufacturers get away with it because you put the bike over your shoulder and use your hand on the bars to stabilize it thereby reducing the impact the battery weight makes on the bikes portageability through the use of the same lever whose fulcrum is your shoulder.

A lot of what you’re saying seems to me to be dancing around the point of “I want an incredibly light, fast e-bike, not a 50lb grocery getter”, and I truly understand that desire. But the reality of the e-bike buying public is that people want those 50lb grocery getters.

It’s the same as the car market. I want a manual everything, decently high displacement inline four with a manual transmission, manual 4wd, crawler gear and enough ground clearance that dirt roads aren’t an issue. Everyone else wants maximum fuel economy and lots of features so all the cars accommodate that set of desires instead of mine.

Yeah when I had to take my bike upstairs I would just hoist it over my shoulder then hold the grocery bags in the same hand so it’s close.

Weve gotten far afield and I’m genuinely thinking you made that comment thinking a person might leave their Walmart bag hanging off their handlebars while carrying the bike in…

What are you talking about?

I know you’re looking for a technical solution but have you considered just yelling across the cabin at each other?

How much does torque come into play when you’re carrying your bike upstairs?

So you carry the groceries upstairs at the same time as your bike?

Wait so would you leave your groceries outside while you carried in your bike?

Five pounds is the grocery bag dangling off my flat bar.

China has very developed bicycle infrastructure and massive public transportation compared to almost anywhere else. There are fewer car owners per capita than other countries. It’s still a smart play to use the hand of state to take steps to allocate the more energy dense batteries to applications that require them.

As I said before: Maybe these better chemistries that will replace lithium are just around the corner. I certainly don’t count unhatched chickens.

What do you want to know how to do?