Behind the Scenes in Kernel Development

An anonymous reader writes "Some interesting changes took place in the way the Linux kernel is developed and tested. In many ways, the methods used to develop the Linux kernel are much the same today as they were 3 years ago. However, several key changes have improved overall stability as well as quality. This article takes a look behind the scenes at the tools, tests, and techniques -- from revision control and regression testing to bugtracking and list keeping -- that helped make 2.6 a better kernel than any that have come before it." We might as well mention here (again) that a couple of new kernels are out: leif.singer writes "2.6.3 and 2.4.25 are out, fixing another vulnerability in do_mremap()."

Comments

Re:Kernel development interests me terribly

[millahtime]

"Much time is spent teaching people how to write code but never really reading it. This is a perfect example of how to do it and why you would."

Reading code can be a huge help in becomeing a better coder. You see how other coders do things. Learning from their bad on what not to do and seeing new good methods you may not have come up with on your own.

Re:Kernel quality

[adrianbaugh]

That's exactly what Linus does: there is such a series of release candidates (first introduced prior to 2.4). You can argue that it isn't long enough, but there's an obvious counterargument that if you wait forever nothing will ever get released.
I can't think of a x.y.0 release of any software project that's been properly stable. It's not just linux, it's the way the world is. You could argue that software never ever becomes perfectly stable: marking a series as "stable" is really just shorthand for good enough that further development is largely maintenance, therefore we expect the structure and codebase to remain stable", not some guarantee that they'll never go wrong. It's more a development term than a performance or reliability term, though the stability of development generally arises from the performance and reliability being sufficient to obviate the need for large changes to the code.

Even quite late in stable kernel release cycles there's occasionally a shocker - anyone remember 2.0.33?

If you don't like those kernels, just stick with 2.4 until a distribution ships with 2.6.8 or so. For what it's worth 2.6.(1+) has been fine for me.

Nobody's lying to you - there has to be some cut-off where a kernel series is declared stable, and by and large I think Linus judges it pretty well.

Interesting read

[Derkec]

It's still amazing to me that a project as large as Linux was able to be so successfull BEFORE the changes that were made to the development process. It lacked a centralized CVS, coherent bug tracking, automated testing... These are all things I use in the smallest of professional projets. Many eyes goes a long way towards compensating for having many hands in a big project, but some structure seems like it's helped.

Beautiful

[maximilln]

I don't like to start new threads but I didn't see this: A general "Thank you for your time, effort, and a job well done" to all of the kernel hackers out there. They're fixing kernel level bugs that are almost at the hardware level while M$ is still patching their web browser. I don't think there's any doubt which system is ultimately more secure.

Can anyone take a guess how many low-level memory exploits are in Windows XP, 2k, or others? Perhaps it's irrelevant. Who needs to crack the low mem when there are so many ways into the system at the document level?

Re:Kernel quality

[pohl]

For what it's worth, 2.6.0 and the subsequent minor revisions have worked flawlessly for me and many associates. You seem quick to assume that they named it a "stable release" prematurely. Have you considered the altertnate hypothesis that you are in the minority of users who have encountered problems? If so, that's not a dishonorable place to be...somebody has to be the poor soul who encounters a bugs. (Thank you, by the way, I appreciate your hardship.)