Some development statistics for 2.6.26 - and beyond

The 2.6 development model says that the bulk of the changes should be merged during the merge window (before the -rc1 release), with only fixes coming thereafter. Here's how things break down for recent releases:

Release	Changesets merged
	For -rc1	after -rc1
2.6.23	4505	2570
2.6.24	7132	3221
2.6.25	9629	3078
2.6.26	7555	2577

So, while the bulk of the big patches enter the kernel during the merge window, at least 25% of the total - and often more - come thereafter. That's a lot of fixes.

So who were the most active developers this time around? Here's the top 20:

Most active 2.6.26 developers

By changesets Harvey Harrison 218 2.2% Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz 197 1.9% Glauber Costa 195 1.9% Adrian Bunk 180 1.8% Joe Perches 160 1.6% Pavel Emelyanov 148 1.5% Ingo Molnar 144 1.4% Denis V. Lunev 140 1.4% Michael Krufky 130 1.3% Mauro Carvalho Chehab 116 1.1% Al Viro 114 1.1% David S. Miller 103 1.0% Tejun Heo 96 0.9% Johannes Berg 96 0.9% Alan Cox 91 0.9% Takashi Iwai 88 0.9% YOSHIFUJI Hideaki 85 0.8% Alexey Starikovskiy 84 0.8% Ivo van Doorn 80 0.8% Bjorn Helgaas 77 0.8%

By changed lines Stephen Hemminger 41762 5.9% Adrian Bunk 28523 4.0% David S. Miller 19178 2.7% Steven Toth 18681 2.6% Ben Hutchings 15535 2.2% Frank Blaschka 14527 2.0% Xiantao Zhang 12935 1.8% Hans Verkuil 12393 1.7% Tejun Heo 10462 1.5% Sebastian Siewior 9519 1.3% Harvey Harrison 9161 1.3% Peter Tiedemann 8483 1.2% Matthew Wilcox 8059 1.1% Paul Walmsley 7635 1.1% Kumar Gala 7152 1.0% Andrew Victor 7062 1.0% Johannes Berg 6544 0.9% Glauber Costa 6260 0.9% Mike Frysinger 6177 0.9% Joe Perches 5773 0.8%

In terms of the number of changesets merged, Harvey Harrison got to the top of the list with a wide variety of of janitorial fixes. Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz continues to put significant effort into cleaning up the IDE subsystem, even though most distributors have moved away from that code and are using the newer PATA layer instead. Glauber Costa has been tirelessly working in the x86 architecture code; in particular, he continues to work toward the goal of unifying the 32-bit and 64-bit code to the greatest extent possible. Adrian Bunk has made a career of cleaning up the code base and eliminating unneeded code. And Joe Perches dedicated much time to eliminating warnings from the checkpatch.pl script.

There have been complaints from the developers that the volume of "cleanup" patches is reaching a point that it is drowning out the rest and interfering with "real work." We're seeing some of that volume here, with three of the top five changeset contributors doing cleanup work - some of which is seen to be more valuable than the rest.

On the lines changed side, we see a mostly different set of developers. In this case, the top slots were earned by deleting code. Stephen Hemminger finally succeeded in getting rid of the old sk98lin driver. Adrian Bunk tore out the bcm43xx driver, the ieee80311 software MAC layer, the xircom_tulip_cb driver, and various other bits and pieces. David Miller removed a bunch of old SPARC code, but replaced it with various other facilities; he also took the PowerPC low-level memory manager and made it generic. Steven Toth works in the Video4Linux layer; he added some new drivers and a bunch of cleanups. Ben Hutchings added the Solarstorm SFC4000 driver.

When one thinks about 2.6.26 features, the things that come to mind include KGDB, almost-ready network namespaces, almost-ready mesh networking support, a working (shall we say "almost ready"?) realtime group scheduler, read-only bind mounts, page attribute table support, the object debugging infrastructure, and, of course, the vast pile of new drivers. One has to look hard to find the developers behind that work in the lists above (some of them are certainly there). Which just reinforces an important point: there is interest and information in counting changesets and lines changed, but the correlation between those numbers and serious accomplishments in kernel programming is weak at best. Unfortunately, "real work" is awfully hard to measure in any sort of automated way.

So what the heck; we'll go back to the numbers we can measure. Here's the most active companies for 2.6.26:

Most active 2.6.26 employers

By changesets (None) 2085 20.6% Red Hat 1130 11.2% (Unknown) 906 8.9% IBM 609 6.0% Novell 597 5.9% Intel 469 4.6% Parallels 312 3.1% SGI 211 2.1% Movial 180 1.8% Oracle 142 1.4% Analog Devices 134 1.3% HP 124 1.2% MontaVista 122 1.2% (Consultant) 116 1.1% Freescale 109 1.1% QLogic 97 1.0% Fujitsu 95 0.9% Google 94 0.9% (Academia) 89 0.9% Marvell 88 0.9%

By lines changed (None) 111703 15.7% IBM 73601 10.3% Red Hat 56331 7.9% Intel 50297 7.1% (Unknown) 44699 6.3% Vyatta 41835 5.9% Novell 33745 4.7% Movial 28632 4.0% Hauppauge 20234 2.8% Analog Devices 18363 2.6% (Consultant) 16397 2.3% Solarflare 15585 2.2% Freescale 15090 2.1% MontaVista 14013 2.0% QLogic 13327 1.9% SGI 10351 1.5% Marvell 7881 1.1% Wind River 7770 1.1% Oracle 7680 1.1% Pengutronix 7334 1.0%

This list tends not to change too much from one release to the next; in particular, the top companies are always the same.

If we look at who is attaching Signed-off-by tags to code they didn't write, we get a sense for who the gatekeepers to the kernel are. These are the developers and companies who are herding code into the mainline:

Sign-offs in the 2.6.26 kernel

By developer Andrew Morton 1377 14.1% Ingo Molnar 961 9.8% David S. Miller 667 6.8% John W. Linville 551 5.6% Mauro Carvalho Chehab 543 5.6% Jeff Garzik 471 4.8% Thomas Gleixner 279 2.9% Greg KH 267 2.7% Linus Torvalds 256 2.6% Paul Mackerras 220 2.2% Takashi Iwai 208 2.1% James Bottomley 203 2.1% Len Brown 200 2.0% Russell King 167 1.7% Avi Kivity 160 1.6% Bryan Wu 140 1.4% Roland Dreier 130 1.3% Lachlan McIlroy 108 1.1% Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz 94 1.0% Ralf Baechle 93 1.0%

By employer Red Hat 3010 30.8% Google 1378 14.1% (None) 1000 10.2% Novell 731 7.5% IBM 577 5.9% Intel 497 5.1% linutronix 283 2.9% Linux Foundation 256 2.6% (Unknown) 206 2.1% (Consultant) 206 2.1% Hansen Partnership 203 2.1% SGI 166 1.7% Qumranet 160 1.6% Analog Devices 149 1.5% Cisco 130 1.3% MIPS Technologies 93 1.0% Oracle 57 0.6% Freescale 55 0.6% Renesas Technology 54 0.6% Univ. of Michigan CITI 47 0.5%

Once again, these numbers tend not to change that much from one development cycle to the next. Subsystem maintainers do not change often.

What's next?

This is the first full development cycle where the linux-next tree was in operation. At this stage in the cycle, linux-next should look very much like 2.6.27 - or, at least, 2.6.27-rc1. Your editor pulled the July 2 linux-next tree and ran some statistics; this tree contains 6527 changesets from 619 developers. Just over 400,000 lines of code are touched, with a net addition of 38,000 lines.

If linux-next is to be believed, the most active 2.6.27 developers will be:

Most active pre-2.6.27 developers

By changesets Avi Kivity 499 7.6% Artem Bityutskiy 292 4.5% Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz 150 2.3% Ingo Molnar 142 2.2% Yinghai Lu 139 2.1% Adrian Hunter 121 1.9% Alan Cox 101 1.5% Xiantao Zhang 100 1.5% Tomas Winkler 91 1.4% Rusty Russell 89 1.4% David Woodhouse 86 1.3% Adrian Bunk 84 1.3% Steven Rostedt 83 1.3% Jonathan Corbet 74 1.1% Arnd Bergmann 73 1.1% Jean Delvare 67 1.0% Harvey Harrison 64 1.0% David Chinner 63 1.0% Lennert Buytenhek 61 0.9% Thomas Gleixner 61 0.9%

By changed lines David Woodhouse 44833 6.7% Artem Bityutskiy 41891 6.3% Eilon Greenstein 18614 2.8% Xiantao Zhang 17223 2.6% Alan Cox 14850 2.2% Jaswinder Singh 10805 1.6% David Brownell 9618 1.4% Stephen Rothwell 9043 1.4% Lennert Buytenhek 9029 1.3% Avi Kivity 8593 1.3% Steven Rostedt 7923 1.2% Adrian Bunk 7424 1.1% Laurent Pinchart 7200 1.1% Yinghai Lu 6850 1.0% Yaniv Rosner 6512 1.0% Carsten Otte 6442 1.0% Tomas Winkler 6250 0.9% Josh Boyer 5292 0.8% Adrian Hunter 5155 0.8% Michael Chan 5133 0.8%

These numbers reflect a number of the larger developments which can be expected for 2.6.27: incredible amounts of KVM work, the merging of the UBIFS filesystem, the ftrace tracing framework, a lot of reworking of the TTY layer, a lot of firmware thrashing, and ongoing big kernel lock removal work.

It will be most interesting to see how these numbers compare with what actually shows up in 2.6.27-rc1. Recent numbers suggest that quite a few patches will hit the mainline without having been in the linux-next tree - either that, or 2.6.27 will be a relatively small release. If nothing else, we will see which developers do not yet get their work into linux-next for integration testing ahead of the merge window.

in theory -rc1 is supposed to have all the major new stuff in it, but in practice Linus
frequently uses -rc1 as a mid-merge status point, getting large numbers of additional changes
shortly after -rc1 (mostly from andrew and other top maintainers) In some cases this is
becouse the changes introduced in -rc1 require adapting other patches to work with them
(something that -next may help with), in other cases it's that people like andrew are busy
checking and reviewing patches during the -rc1 timeframe, and so Linus seems to pull from them
just after it.

so I suspect that your table of changes per -rc would show an even bigger drop-off after -rc2
then it does after -rc1.

The commit count is an artifact of how the kvm git tree is managed.

In reality expect around 60 commits for 2.6.27-rc1 (well below the kvm average).

Avi,

I am unsure how the KVM changelog (http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog) relates to the
kernel version.

i.e. Will 2.6.26-release contain all (kernel parts) of KVM-70?
Or will that be in 2.6.27-rc1?

How can one tell?

Thanks

There's no 1:1 correspondence.

kvm-nn releases are development snapshots, really, and contain new features, bug fixes, and
new bugs.

Linux releases will generally contain the last kvm snapshot before the merge windows starts,
and bug fixes that accumulate in the 2+ months up to the release.  So 2.6.27-rc1 will roughly
contain kvm-70 plus all bug fixes since applied.

Thanks for the explanation.

"So 2.6.27-rc1 will roughly contain kvm-70 plus all bug fixes since applied."

Unless KVM-71 comes out soon! :-)

In terms of changed lines, I would expect Paul Mackerras to be right at 
the top for 2.6.27, since we're removing the old arch/ppc architecture 
code that has around 140,000 lines.

I realize that counting removed files is somewhat tricky as you don't want 
to count renamed files as a significant contribution, but IMHO removing 
entire files is just as important as adding new ones.

Have these been introduced yet? If so it would be nice to see the stats so appropriate praise
could be lavished on these noble souls.

When I look at "Most active 2.6.26 employers" I see that the Linux companies (RedHat, Novell)
are placed relatively higher when scored by changesets than by number of lines, whereas
"traditional" companies (Intel, IBM) are the other way around. Are Linux companies simply
better at breaking down the patches in small digestable chunks, where as the others develop a
big thing a commit the lot? Or is because the big companies develop large features where as
the Linux companies do much of the bug-fixing?

I wonder if it would be worth sorting the top 10 or 20 universities, it might be interesting
to prospective students as well as giving kudos to departments that deserve them.

It's distressing to read Jonathan buy into the "real work" BS.  Code 
cleanup *is* real work.  I would argue it's more important than feature 
work.  The more you stabilize your base, the easier it is to add new 
features.

Far too many programmers dismiss the contributions of those who work 
tirelessly to clean up our messes.