The reason is entirely technical and I think it has been formulated clearly - maintaining cross-language codebase, or one of the most important kernel modules FWIW in this case, certainly does not make things simpler but only more complex - communication-wise, time-wise, resource-wise, uncertainty-wise etc. I think this is pretty clear and not really debatable IMO.
The actual question is if that overhead is worth it and it seems that there is no clear answer on that question despite many Rust-force claiming otherwise. I can totally understand the position of kernel maintainers.
What I cannot understand is the following shameful, almost unbelievable, act from Hector Martin
> If shaming on social media does not work, then tell me what does,
because I'm out of ideas.
If there's a single most reason why Rust-in-Linux will fail it is going to be because of the immaturity and entitlement of individuals in Rust community.
The actual question is if that overhead is worth it and it seems that there is no clear answer on that question despite many Rust-force claiming otherwise. I can totally understand the position of kernel maintainers.
What I cannot understand is the following shameful, almost unbelievable, act from Hector Martin
> If shaming on social media does not work, then tell me what does, because I'm out of ideas.
If there's a single most reason why Rust-in-Linux will fail it is going to be because of the immaturity and entitlement of individuals in Rust community.