The current approach of silently disabling all rust drivers if the
toolchain is missing results in users that try to compile their own
kernels getting a "successful" build and then being confused about where
did their drivers go. In comparison, missing openssl results in a build
failure, not a disappearance of everything that depends on it.

Signed-off-by: Sasha Finkelstein <k@chaosmail.tech>
---
 init/Kconfig | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
index 2937c4d308ae..f7d4c7ea764f 100644
--- a/init/Kconfig
+++ b/init/Kconfig
@@ -2190,7 +2190,6 @@ config PROFILING
 config RUST
 	bool "Rust support"
 	depends on HAVE_RUST
-	depends on RUST_IS_AVAILABLE
 	select EXTENDED_MODVERSIONS if MODVERSIONS
 	depends on !MODVERSIONS || GENDWARFKSYMS
 	depends on !GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT

---
base-commit: 1bfaee9d3351b9b32a99766bbfb1f5baed60ddef
change-id: 20260510-evolve-to-crab-8cba1768dcd5

Best regards,
--  
Sasha Finkelstein <k@chaosmail.tech>

On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 3:36 PM Sasha Finkelstein <k@chaosmail.tech> wrote:
>
> The current approach of silently disabling all rust drivers if the
> toolchain is missing results in users that try to compile their own
> kernels getting a "successful" build and then being confused about where
> did their drivers go. In comparison, missing openssl results in a build
> failure, not a disappearance of everything that depends on it.

Yeah, it is quite confusing (though it was done on purpose).

Personally, I think it may be time to finally change it.

Cheers,
Miguel

On Sun May 10, 2026 at 2:45 PM BST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 3:36 PM Sasha Finkelstein <k@chaosmail.tech> wrote:
>>
>> The current approach of silently disabling all rust drivers if the
>> toolchain is missing results in users that try to compile their own
>> kernels getting a "successful" build and then being confused about where
>> did their drivers go. In comparison, missing openssl results in a build
>> failure, not a disappearance of everything that depends on it.
>
> Yeah, it is quite confusing (though it was done on purpose).
>
> Personally, I think it may be time to finally change it.

I believe the original reason for doing so is that people can use allyesconfig
and it'll disable all Rust modules if they don't have a working Rust compiler.

Do you intend to change it so that allyesconfig needs Rust, or is there a
different mechanism to make allyesconfig ignore Rust modules?

Best,
Gary

On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 04:53:15PM +0100, Gary Guo wrote:
> On Sun May 10, 2026 at 2:45 PM BST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 3:36 PM Sasha Finkelstein <k@chaosmail.tech> wrote:
> >>
> >> The current approach of silently disabling all rust drivers if the
> >> toolchain is missing results in users that try to compile their own
> >> kernels getting a "successful" build and then being confused about where
> >> did their drivers go. In comparison, missing openssl results in a build
> >> failure, not a disappearance of everything that depends on it.
> >
> > Yeah, it is quite confusing (though it was done on purpose).
> >
> > Personally, I think it may be time to finally change it.
> 
> I believe the original reason for doing so is that people can use allyesconfig
> and it'll disable all Rust modules if they don't have a working Rust compiler.
> 
> Do you intend to change it so that allyesconfig needs Rust, or is there a
> different mechanism to make allyesconfig ignore Rust modules?

One could argue that since commit 9fa7153c31a3 ("rust: conclude the Rust
experiment") RUST belongs in the allyesconfig.

If that's valid the patch misses to add "depends" on the architectures
which have support Rust support in the kernel.

Janne

> On May 10, 2026, at 19:56, Janne Grunau <j@jannau.net> wrote:
> 
> If that's valid the patch misses to add "depends" on the architectures
> which have support Rust support in the kernel.
> 
I believe that HAVE_RUST already covers it.