From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262804AbUJ1H22 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:28:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262809AbUJ1H21 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:28:27 -0400 Received: from hacksaw.org ([66.92.70.107]:41667 "EHLO hacksaw.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262804AbUJ1H2Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:28:24 -0400 Message-Id: <200410280728.i9S7SIYW017628@hacksaw.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.0 06/18/2004 with nmh-1.0.4 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: My thoughts on the "new development model" In-reply-to: Your message of "28 Oct 2004 16:46:58 +1000." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:28:18 -0400 From: Hacksaw Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > That's NOT the same as bug free software. For a start, there's no such > thing. Speaking of which, here's something I have wondered: is anyone out there trying to prove the correctness of core functions in the kernel? I was thinking this would be a fine activity for all those eager college students out there, or perhaps a graduate student project, a la the Stanford Checker project. While I can't imagine the main developers doing such a thing, I think it'd be useful and might uncover some hard to find bugs. I'd also suspect that they might be good candidates for proving, as there's not so much reason to have side effect riddled code, as one might for GUI programs. -- A psychosis is a psychosis, but a Manwich is a meal http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD