This whole thing is, at it's core, an architectural question. It's quite simple: How much should the C code have to change to allow better Rust support?
Despite his position as "Benevolent dictator for life", Linus doesn't really have the chutzpah to stand up and say "we're doing it this way"[1], so these sorts of questions try to get resolved through petty bickering and namecalling instead (which is the opposite of consensus-building and healthy debate and just makes people more entrenched and unwilling to compromise).
[1] - He was already ousted from the project once, I don't think he wants to try it again.
It is what it is... However if you want volunteers to contribute to the kernel and introduce rust as a way to get more people to join this looks pretty bad... I'm sure stuff will figure itself out in the long run it's just sad that the discourse exists at all. I guess the linux kernel will never transition to memory safety via a new language? Idk what else can be done.
This is a remarkably disappointing end to Hellwig's original NACK, yet entirely expected based on the recent treatment of R4L devs.
Another for the pile of reverse-engineered devicetrees that started downstream, tried to negotiate with upstream and ended up realizing the futility of it all. Godspeed, may your path to depreciation be slow and painless.
Some background:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6OzgBYZNJPr_ZD1@phenom.ffwll.lo...
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wi=ZmP2=TmHsFSUGq8vUZAOWWS...