Re: Verifying the kernel

Arjan van de Ven (arjan@stack.nl)
Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:08:42 +0100 (CET)


Riley (rhw@bigfoot.com) wrote:
> However, as I see it, a selection of just THREE of the many
> combinations of options should detect MOST of the problems that
> prevent the kernel from compiling. These may not produce useful
> kernels, but they would be useful as test cases because of this
> property.

> Incidentally, I've tried all three of the above on my system, using
> the raw 2.0.35 source tree, and NONE of them compiled without an error
> causing them to crash out.

Maybe the following is a good idea to improve the quality of the kernels:
Have one or more machines doing nothing but compiles on the latest kernel,
using (semi)random configurations (1).

It might even be possible to automate the bugreporting caused by this in a
bug-tracking system that checks if errors in a previous version are fixed
in the new version of the kernel, and maybe even some stats (like what
parts contain the most problems).

If the major kernel-people (Linus, Alan, DavidM etc) think this is a good
idea, I'm willing to put some time into this....

Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven

(1) Mozilla uses a similar approach, where patches are accepted only when
the beast compiles.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/