The problem with the rust developers creating an API based on a file system that is a “toy” (i.e. a limited subset of features) is that the API abstraction does not cater for all file systems.
The advise provided is good - develop a file system module in rust for ext2 and then propose a new API.
> The advice provided is good - develop a file system module in rust for ext2 and then propose a new API.
Although I think the point re: the API is not really worth quibbling too much about, I think "Go rewrite ext2 in Rust" is pretty goofy advice, when the purpose is something like "so we will know what the API should look like."
The minute someone implements a filesystem in Rust used by real people is when the rubber will meet the road. Rust filesystems may be different. Everyone is on notice -- APIs aren't stable in the kernel. They especially aren't stable when no one is using them. Something should be there to avoid 8 different implementations, but this endless -- go reimplement an existing facility, as an exercise, teaches us very little, and is mostly a waste of resources (which I'm beginning to believe is the point).
The advise provided is good - develop a file system module in rust for ext2 and then propose a new API.