OSDev.org

Hmm, I don't know what you guys are talking about, the files in the kernel directory are commented (so are the ones in the ipc directory, if it makes any difference). I haven't looked at other parts but I'd expect them not to be documented as much since a lot of people contribute to Linux, many of whom do not speak english.

L4B: The arch specific trees are almost completely uncommented. And they're the ones that matter most.

The kernel dir has all the stuff that needs no tricks, and is the same across all ports. Most of the time when looking for something nitty gritty, it's in an arch directory. And it tends to be slightly hard to decipher, too. Although with practice, you can easily parse everything after a while.

Even then, for e.g Interrupt Handling which is always arch specific, reading the code is difficult.

Perhaps we're not looking at the same code, the x86 tree seems to be commented (including interrupt handling)...

Also, I really don't find architecture-specific code to be the most critical. That more or less implements whatever is described in hardware datasheets. More or less because there are often workarounds used for bugs in hardware; those should be documented. Writing portable (non-arch-specific) code on the other hand is extremely tricky.

Love4Boobies wrote:Perhaps we're not looking at the same code, the x86 tree seems to be commented (including interrupt handling)...

Also, I really don't find architecture-specific code to be the most critical. That more or less implements whatever is described in hardware datasheets. More or less because there are often workarounds used for bugs in hardware; those should be documented. Writing portable (non-arch-specific) code on the other hand is extremely tricky.

Well, the drivers(including those workarounds) aren't so documented, sometimes it's seems intentional and a bit annoying(because you have to search all source code for them and stare at each statement).