zlacker

> "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways."

What are you quoting? I don't see this anywhere in the thread.

The nearest I see is:

    If you cannot get over the fact that the kernel may have other
    requirements that trump any language standards, we really can't work
    together.

A reasonable, politely delivered, statement directed to an individual as opposed to Rust. It was in response to this rather cringy bit of lecturing:

    No one is talking about absolute safety guarantees. I am talking about
    specific ones that Rust makes: these are well-documented and formally
    defined.

Rust has no formal language specification yet. It's still "an area of research," to paraphrase what is said when the question is asked. No defined memory model either; from the current Rust reference:

    Rust does not yet have a defined memory model. Various academics
    and industry professionals are working on various proposals, but
    for now, this is an under-defined place in the language.

One could argue (not me; I'm far too pragmatic for such things) that Linus is being exceptionally generous in entertaining Rust in its current state.

>>topspi+(OP)
FWIW, I actually mostly agree with Linus.

I was paraphrasing. I didn't want to write a page length comment, and won't here, but there were a few more instances of similar ultimatums (like "Or, you know, if you can't deal with the rules that the kernel requires, then just don't do kernel programming.") And all are similarly ridiculous/dickish. Really no need for such dramatic convulsions, Linus, where Wedson was simply trying to explain the API expectations of the Rust language.

Re: the rest, I think you are conflating Rust's UB guarantees with a specified memory model.

>>mustac+72
> I was paraphrasing.

You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.

> Rust's UB guarantees

Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? Rust doesn't have one as far as I know.

>>topspi+w4
> You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.

I think it's a fair characterization of what was said. Feel free, as everyone is, to read the entire thread again. I'm not a journalist. You have the primary source at your finger tips!

> Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees?

You're looking at the Rust reference right? https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde...

>>mustac+g5
> You're looking at the Rust reference right?

Not normative, as stated here[1], linked from the page you cite.

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/index.html

>>topspi+Z5
Okay? Do you think you have you quibbled enough? To be clear, I still think it's fine for Wedson to inform him even if the document is not a normative reference/specification? Even if these are just the expectations of API/Rust users?

>>mustac+g5
> I think it's a fair characterization of what was said.

I think inventing Linus quotes is unfair.

>>topspi+J6
Again, not a journalist? You/everyone are supposed to have read the primary source, as it's the linked subject of our discussion. I think whatever expectations of fairness we have for internet comments -- I have far exceeded them. And now we have your comment pointing out... whatever it is you wanted to point out. Reader beware!

>>mustac+A6
> the expectations of API/Rust users?

Pointing out whatever those are is fine. Linus pointing out the expectations of the Linux kernel is fine too, and no amount of invoking fictional formalisms trumps them.

>>topspi+k8
I 100% agree. And if you read my comments you'd realize, I agree with Linus on the substance. I think the way he said it was dick-ish. That's it!