Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rust for Filesystems

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 206 posts

Re: Rust for Filesystems

#131

Post by gizmo686 »

varjag wrote: post #126
lambda wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling C from Rust can be quite simple. You just declare the external function and call it. For example, straight out of the Rust book https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-01-unsafe-rust.html#usin... : extern "C" { fn abs(input: i32) -> i32; } fn main() { unsafe { println!("Absolute value of -3 according to C: {}", abs(-3)); } } Now, if you have a complex library and don't want to write all of the declarations by han…

That's not really "simple", it's on par with C FFI in about any other language (except C++), with same drawbacks.

... And? Most languages make C interop simple.

Re: Rust for Filesystems

#133

Post by aoieu »

logicprog wrote: post #60
aoieu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I've not read any of these comments but it sounds like the author of that message is somewhat peeved at the fact he can't control the conversation of others. Are you fucking serious right now? Did you actually read what they said? Want is wrong with you? They're not "peeved" about "not being able to control the conversations of others", they're pointing out that because of Hacker News's lax and irresponsible modera…

That sounds highly unlikely given the strict moderation on this site. So unless I see any evidence of it, I'll continue to assume otherwise.

From what I can gather after looking at previous posts on Asahi Linux, as another commenter suggested, the author of that message is furious that some HN users were talking about a cartoon character alter ego that he uses to make video streams. Seems to me like he's overreacting a bit.

Re: Rust for Filesystems

#134

Post by varjag »

gizmo686 wrote: post #131
varjag wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really "simple", it's on par with C FFI in about any other language (except C++), with same drawbacks.

... And? Most languages make C interop simple.

They quickly become unwieldy on non-trivial APIs, with hundreds of definitions across dozens of files and with macros to boot. Naturally people would still get the job done but it's beyond simple.

Re: Rust for Filesystems

#135

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

jeroenhd wrote: post #70
aniviacat wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find a rant in the link. Was the link changed or did I overlook something?

The author of the website details their issue with the way HN does moderation (which I can't say I disagree with, especially after HN intentionally disabled referrer headers for websites that take issue with HN). This only shows up if HN is in the referer URL. I wouldn't call it a rant, but rather a polite request for HN policy to change.

> I wouldn't call it a rant, but rather a polite request for HN policy to change.

Which is made by blocking people with no ability to do anything about it.

Re: Rust for Filesystems

#136

Post by swfsql »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #120
sandywaffles wrote: post #109

I wasn't clear and am not familiar enough with the Linux FS systems to know if this Rust API would be wrapping or re-implementing the C APIs? If it's re-implementing (or rather an additional API) it seems keeping the names the same as the C API would be problematic and lead to more confusion over time, even if initially it helped already-familiar-developers grok whats going on faster.

> Almeida put up a slide with the equivalent of iget_locked() in Rust, which was called get_or_create_inode(). Seems like the answer is that it's reimplementing and doesn't use the same names.

I'm not familiar with those functions, but I had the impression they actually shouldn't have the same name.

Since the Rust function has implicit/automatic behavior depending on how it's state is and how it's used by the callsite, and since the C one doesn't have any implicit/automatic behavior (as in, separate/explicit lifecycle calls must be made "manually"), I don't even see the reason for them to have the same name.

That is to say, having the same name would be somehow wrong since the functions do and serve for different stuff.

But it would make sense, at least from the Rust site, to have documentation referring to the original C name.

Re: Rust for Filesystems

#137

Post by keybored »

aoieu wrote: post #4

[flagged]

> Interesting discussion amongst kernel developers and maybe a sign that Rust evangelism has gone too far for its own good?

LVM: Hey there was this Linux summit on file systems and Rust was discussed

HN commenter: has Rust evangelism gone too far!?

I swear HN commenters are more over the top than tabloid headlines sometimes.

Re: Rust for Filesystems

#138

Post by keybored »

tucnak wrote: post #92
abenga wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. Is this serious or facetious? Or could be either, depending on the response? There already is rust code in the Linux kernel (some drivers), afaik.

Linus strategy on Rust is genius, albeit immoral. — Don't engage the movement head-on, make concessions where it doesn't matter. — Nobody wants to write drivers? No problem, have THEM write the drivers where the impact is minimal. I believe, if Rust people really understood how they're being used exactly, they wouldn't bother with it, and would go on to write more impactful code. And yet, Linus had managed to execute…

> Linus strategy on Rust is genius, albeit immoral. — Don't engage the movement head-on, make concessions where it doesn't matter. — Nobody wants to write drivers? No problem, have THEM write the drivers where the impact is minimal.

Using telepathy to explain someone’s unstated intention to undermine some programming language’s use in the kernel with this House of Cards plotline makes you look insane btw.

Re: Rust for Filesystems

#139

Post by keybored »

pessimizer wrote: post #74
pjc50 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I refuse to believe that any single person would not want to stop someone from bullying someone else into their own suicide! There are plenty of people who do want the freedom to say exactly what they choose, including a lengthy period of directed harassment, and shrug their shoulders if someone commits suicide over it. There's not much that can be done other than ban them from civilized spaces.

"Bullying" is a judgement. Intrinsic to the word is a judgement that what is being done is bad, and the person doing it would not describe it that way. And by that I don't mean that it's not bad to bully people (it's rather tautological), I mean that talk of bullying often begs the question, and is intentionally done in order to elide past the actual events that occurred. Lèse majesté laws against talking about the K…

I mean this is correct. Bullies, or at least the adult ones, don’t call what they do bullying (except the absolute geniuses that think “actually bullying has a social corrective behavior, I’m just helping actually”).

We’re all just busting each other’s balls, right? Look at George, he’s laughing! He’s totally in on the joke and not at all just showing submissive deference in order to not lose face.

Post reply on HN