A Study of Feature Scattering in the Linux Kernel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feature code is often scattered across a software system. Scattering is not necessarily bad if used with care, as witnessed by systems with highly scattered features that evolved successfully. Feature scattering, often realized with a pre-processor, circumvents limitations of programming languages and software architectures. Unfortunately, little is known about the principles governing scattering in large and long-living software systems. We present a longitudinal study of feature scattering in the Linux kernel, complemented by a survey with 74, and interviews with nine Linux kernel developers. We analyzed almost eight years of the kernel's history, focusing on its largest subsystem: device drivers. We learned that the ratio of scattered features remained nearly constant and that most features were introduced without scattering. Yet, scattering easily crosses subsystem boundaries, and highly scattered outliers exist. Scattering often addresses a performance-maintenance tradeoff (alleviating complicated APIs), hardware design limitations, and avoids code duplication. While developers do not consciously enforce scattering limits, they actually improve the system design and refactor code, thereby mitigating pre-processor idiosyncrasies or reducing its use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".