Okay, sorry. He just said there should be no rust in the kernel.
You can ascribe bad faith motivations when someone presents technical objections that are already fully answered in the patch that was submitted, and when this is pointed out, they admit that, but don't retract their objections.
The original objections are specifically not a case of differing values or design ideas. They are nonsensical, the equivalent of 1 = 2.
That's also not what he said; it's "no Rust in kernel/dma". He pretty much explicitly said it's okay for drivers to do their thing in Rust, but with their own wrappers. You can consider that dumb, but you can't shorten that to "no Rust in the kernel".
And "I replied to your objections, therefore the matter is settled" is arrogant beyond belief. People can disagree, you know, because they have different priorities, different preferences, different perspectives, etc.
> Every additional bit that the another language creeps in drastically reduces the maintainability of the kernel as an integrated project. The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language complely breaks this. You might not like my answer, but I will do everything I can do to stop this.
Have you actually taken a look at the patch?
There was NO RUST CODE ADDED TO kernel/dma, they wanted to add a dma wrapper to a rust/ folder.
I'm sorry for not being clearer, but that is specifically not what is going on. The objections were of factual, technical nature. As in, "do not do X". The problem is that the code in question was not doing X, and it was not doing anything that could be construed as doing X. The objections did not arise from differences in priorities, preferences, or perspectives, they were just factually wrong.