> let's start by prefacing that 'production quality' C is 100% unsafe in Rust terms.

I don't know what one should even make from that statement.

> here's where we fundamentally disagree: you listed a couple dozen unsafe places in 1.5kLOC of code; let's be generous and say that's 10%

It's more than 10%, you didn't even bother to look at the code but still presented it, what in reality is a toy driver example, as something credible (?) to support your argument of me spreading FUD. Kinda silly.

Even if it was only that much (10%), the fact it is in the most crucial part of the code makes the argument around Rust safety moot. I am sure you heard of 90/10 rule.

The time will tell but I am not holding my breath. I think this is a bad thing for Linux kernel development.

▲

baq 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

> I don't know what one should even make from that statement.

it's just a fact. by definition of the Rust language unsafe Rust is approximately as safe as C (technically Rust is still safer than C in its unsafe blocks, but we can ignore that.)

> you didn't even bother to look at the code but still presented

of course I did, what I've seen were one-liner trait impls (the 'whole traits' from your own post) and sub-line expressions of unsafe access to bindings.

	▲	zozbot234 21 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> technically Rust is still safer than C in its unsafe blocks This is quite dubious in a practical sense, since Rust unsafe blocks must manually uphold the safety invariants that idiomatic Safe Rust relies on at all times, which includes, e.g. references pointing to valid and properly aligned data, as well as requirements on mutable references comparable to what the `restrict` qualifier (which is rarely used) involves in C. In practice, this is hard to do consistently, and may trigger unexpected UB. Some of these safety invariants can be relaxed in simple ways (e.g. &Cell<T> being aliasable where &mut T isn't) but this isn't always idiomatic or free of boilerplate in Safe Rust.
	▲	menaerus 11 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So, unsafe block every 70 LoC in 1500 LoC toy example? Sure, it's a strong argument.