Linus is not a boss, that's correct, but he is the BDFL. He doesn't always choose to make every decision himself, but the decision to allow Rust in the tree was made by him.
> not such that it will bend and change the rules and put a technical burden on everyone else.
Absolutely. That is very important. We are in agreement here.
> This issue is solely a technical burden
Here are the entirety of the arguments made:
"No rust code in kernel/dma, please" when no Rust code was being added to kernel/dma.
"Keep the wrappers [duplicated in every driver] instead of making life painful for others." and "interfaces to the DMA API should stay in readable C code". He is not responsible for those wrappers, nor for fixing them when the underling APIs change. This is an argument against the existence of a Rust API for DMA in general, on the conceptual grounds that it exists at all, not a technical argument.
"Maintaining multi-language projects is a pain I have no interest in dealing with. If you want to use something that's not C, be that assembly or rust you write to C interfaces and deal with the impedence mismatch yourself as far as I'm concerned." They have already agreed to this.
"If you want to make Linux impossible to maintain due to a cross-language codebase do that in your driver" it was already decided that a cross-language codebase is acceptable in general. That is, it is on technical grounds (though poorly argued), but since a conclusion was come to already, it's no longer a technical argument, it's disagreeing with the process itself.
"The common ground is that I have absolutely no interest in helping to spread a multi-language code base. I absolutely support using Rust in new codebase, but I do not at all in Linux." This is a non-technical argument.
That's it. All of the technical aspects were agreed to. The only other arguments are either about the process in general, or ideological.
> not a good guy vs bad guy,
I do not think He is a bad guy. I think he is being obstructionist on ideological grounds, and does not bring anything new to the table.
> I think you missed the Linus reply on the topic
In this case, Linus is talking to Hector, who is not involved in the patch, nor as far as I know a member of Rust for Linux, though he does support their aims. He purely replied to the social media stuff, and made no comments on the patch or the arguments about it.
