Advocating for an API with clearer semantics has, afaict, been most of the actual work of integrating Rust into the kernel.

▲

zaphar 10 hours ago | parent [-]

That is my understanding from the outside as well. The core question here should, I think, be whether the adoption and spread of clearer semantics via Rust is worth the potential for confusion and misunderstandings at the boundaries between C and Rust. From the article it appears that this specific instance actually resulted in identifying issues in the usage of the C api's here that are geting scrutiny and fixes as a result. That would indicate the introduction of Rust is causing the trend line to go in the correct direction in at least this instance.

	▲	thenewwazoo 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's been largely my experience of RIIR over years of work in numerous contexts: attempting to encode invariants in the type system results in identifying semantic issues. over and over. edit to add: and I'm not talking about compilation failures so much as design problems. when the meaning of a value is overloaded, or when there's a "you must do Y after X and never before" and then you can't write equivalent code in all cases, and so on. "but what does this mean?" becomes the question to answer.