Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230406215615.122099-1-daniel.almeida@collabora.com>
 <441a96cb-7dd1-0885-df64-933ebdb55e9e@selasky.org> <0ec4becd05c49e8f0bf214fbd62208ea67c2b4c3.camel@collabora.com>
 <6fc0a0c6-a7c9-5350-9b9e-1ea9dab568d0@selasky.org> <CANiq72m812+L6dc4Qs2wUXW85eBQwgrjWYYKc1MSsqN5AG_sFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9f896097-8410-4d09-b614-6e792b2160f4@selasky.org> <CANiq72mv2uYe1x6cy4zUq8XHhAZcYYpt6hVXMG4yQZeqw1kY7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1d50d25c-e64b-01f4-029f-8b40b46848fd@selasky.org> <CANiq72mbM+WBcvj1TwU2u9kLz=EucLhLR-a5nzZEDa7VJ0s2_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ca17f815-5779-d37c-e3f8-2a6c2983fe45@selasky.org>
In-Reply-To: <ca17f815-5779-d37c-e3f8-2a6c2983fe45@selasky.org>
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:22:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CANiq72mn1nD38DGHpFQzerC=_ifR39Vpbb_PzLv5Q75SdzTxQg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Initial Rust V4L2 support
To:     Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>
Cc:     Daniel Almeida <daniel.almeida@collabora.com>, wedsonaf@gmail.com,
        ojeda@kernel.org, mchehab@kernel.org, hverkuil@xs4all.nl,
        rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kernel@collabora.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 5:33=E2=80=AFPM Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.or=
g> wrote:
>
> Similarly rustc may depend on an incorrectly specified ioctl()
> definition, also via other libraries and static linking, that just have
> to stay incorrectly defined, because it was initially incorrectly defined=
.

Why would a compiler depend on random ioctls? Even if it did, how is
that related to the previous discussion? A compiler is just one more
userspace application. Whether the kernel uses C or Rust internally
has nothing to do with that.

Also, I don't follow your logic. You said you cannot upgrade your
toolchain (for some reason), and your argument is that the kernel
keeps interfaces stable? Well, yes, that is the point and what allows
you to upgrade.

Moreover, what is special about `rustc` here? What about your C toolchain?

> I'm trying to explain something difficult. And I'm OK that you neither
> understand nor agree about my viewpoint. See my replies above.

No, it is not a matter of being difficult. It is just that you have
not shown how you would be prevented from upgrading a toolchain.

Cheers,
Miguel