On Tue, 2025-11-18 at 08:39 +0000, David Howells wrote: > James Bottomley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But even if you don't accept that, Google keeps effective joint > > ownership of the code through their CLA and so could grant a dual > > licence to the kernel anyway without needing to refer to any > > contributors. > > Actually, the fact that BoringSSL's ML-DSA implementation uses C++ > with heavy use of integer-parametered templating is more > insurmountable for borrowing their code. Yes, it does allow them to > reduce their LoC to ~3000 and is much more readable, but I can't do > that in C.
I was only commenting on the legality of copying not the technical feasibility. > Now, if we want to work on persuading Linus to allow C++ into the > kernel... Having worked on it, C++ is a bit of a messy language in that there are many more idioms for the same construct than in C, so I can see why C is preferred for cleaner coding. On the other hand if the safety profiles work actually produces something useful (unlike safe C++ which just flamed out) I could see that being a reason to revisit. Regards, James
