diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 1079 |
1 files changed, 1079 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4e7c0a1c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst @@ -0,0 +1,1079 @@ +.. _codingstyle: + +Linux kernel coding style +========================= + +This is a short document describing the preferred coding style for the +linux kernel. Coding style is very personal, and I won't **force** my +views on anybody, but this is what goes for anything that I have to be +able to maintain, and I'd prefer it for most other things too. Please +at least consider the points made here. + +First off, I'd suggest printing out a copy of the GNU coding standards, +and NOT read it. Burn them, it's a great symbolic gesture. + +Anyway, here goes: + + +1) Indentation +-------------- + +Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8 characters. +There are heretic movements that try to make indentations 4 (or even 2!) +characters deep, and that is akin to trying to define the value of PI to +be 3. + +Rationale: The whole idea behind indentation is to clearly define where +a block of control starts and ends. Especially when you've been looking +at your screen for 20 straight hours, you'll find it a lot easier to see +how the indentation works if you have large indentations. + +Now, some people will claim that having 8-character indentations makes +the code move too far to the right, and makes it hard to read on a +80-character terminal screen. The answer to that is that if you need +more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix +your program. + +In short, 8-char indents make things easier to read, and have the added +benefit of warning you when you're nesting your functions too deep. +Heed that warning. + +The preferred way to ease multiple indentation levels in a switch statement is +to align the ``switch`` and its subordinate ``case`` labels in the same column +instead of ``double-indenting`` the ``case`` labels. E.g.: + +.. code-block:: c + + switch (suffix) { + case 'G': + case 'g': + mem <<= 30; + break; + case 'M': + case 'm': + mem <<= 20; + break; + case 'K': + case 'k': + mem <<= 10; + /* fall through */ + default: + break; + } + +Don't put multiple statements on a single line unless you have +something to hide: + +.. code-block:: c + + if (condition) do_this; + do_something_everytime; + +Don't put multiple assignments on a single line either. Kernel coding style +is super simple. Avoid tricky expressions. + +Outside of comments, documentation and except in Kconfig, spaces are never +used for indentation, and the above example is deliberately broken. + +Get a decent editor and don't leave whitespace at the end of lines. + + +2) Breaking long lines and strings +---------------------------------- + +Coding style is all about readability and maintainability using commonly +available tools. + +The limit on the length of lines is 80 columns and this is a strongly +preferred limit. + +Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless +exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does not hide +information. Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and +are placed substantially to the right. The same applies to function headers +with a long argument list. However, never break user-visible strings such as +printk messages, because that breaks the ability to grep for them. + + +3) Placing Braces and Spaces +---------------------------- + +The other issue that always comes up in C styling is the placement of +braces. Unlike the indent size, there are few technical reasons to +choose one placement strategy over the other, but the preferred way, as +shown to us by the prophets Kernighan and Ritchie, is to put the opening +brace last on the line, and put the closing brace first, thusly: + +.. code-block:: c + + if (x is true) { + we do y + } + +This applies to all non-function statement blocks (if, switch, for, +while, do). E.g.: + +.. code-block:: c + + switch (action) { + case KOBJ_ADD: + return "add"; + case KOBJ_REMOVE: + return "remove"; + case KOBJ_CHANGE: + return "change"; + default: + return NULL; + } + +However, there is one special case, namely functions: they have the +opening brace at the beginning of the next line, thus: + +.. code-block:: c + + int function(int x) + { + body of function + } + +Heretic people all over the world have claimed that this inconsistency +is ... well ... inconsistent, but all right-thinking people know that +(a) K&R are **right** and (b) K&R are right. Besides, functions are +special anyway (you can't nest them in C). + +Note that the closing brace is empty on a line of its own, **except** in +the cases where it is followed by a continuation of the same statement, +ie a ``while`` in a do-statement or an ``else`` in an if-statement, like +this: + +.. code-block:: c + + do { + body of do-loop + } while (condition); + +and + +.. code-block:: c + + if (x == y) { + .. + } else if (x > y) { + ... + } else { + .... + } + +Rationale: K&R. + +Also, note that this brace-placement also minimizes the number of empty +(or almost empty) lines, without any loss of readability. Thus, as the +supply of new-lines on your screen is not a renewable resource (think +25-line terminal screens here), you have more empty lines to put +comments on. + +Do not unnecessarily use braces where a single statement will do. + +.. code-block:: c + + if (condition) + action(); + +and + +.. code-block:: none + + if (condition) + do_this(); + else + do_that(); + +This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a single +statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches: + +.. code-block:: c + + if (condition) { + do_this(); + do_that(); + } else { + otherwise(); + } + +Also, use braces when a loop contains more than a single simple statement: + +.. code-block:: c + + while (condition) { + if (test) + do_something(); + } + +3.1) Spaces +*********** + +Linux kernel style for use of spaces depends (mostly) on +function-versus-keyword usage. Use a space after (most) keywords. The +notable exceptions are sizeof, typeof, alignof, and __attribute__, which look +somewhat like functions (and are usually used with parentheses in Linux, +although they are not required in the language, as in: ``sizeof info`` after +``struct fileinfo info;`` is declared). + +So use a space after these keywords:: + + if, switch, case, for, do, while + +but not with sizeof, typeof, alignof, or __attribute__. E.g., + +.. code-block:: c + + + s = sizeof(struct file); + +Do not add spaces around (inside) parenthesized expressions. This example is +**bad**: + +.. code-block:: c + + + s = sizeof( struct file ); + +When declaring pointer data or a function that returns a pointer type, the +preferred use of ``*`` is adjacent to the data name or function name and not +adjacent to the type name. Examples: + +.. code-block:: c + + + char *linux_banner; + unsigned long long memparse(char *ptr, char **retptr); + char *match_strdup(substring_t *s); + +Use one space around (on each side of) most binary and ternary operators, +such as any of these:: + + = + - < > * / % | & ^ <= >= == != ? : + +but no space after unary operators:: + + & * + - ~ ! sizeof typeof alignof __attribute__ defined + +no space before the postfix increment & decrement unary operators:: + + ++ -- + +no space after the prefix increment & decrement unary operators:: + + ++ -- + +and no space around the ``.`` and ``->`` structure member operators. + +Do not leave trailing whitespace at the ends of lines. Some editors with +``smart`` indentation will insert whitespace at the beginning of new lines as +appropriate, so you can start typing the next line of code right away. +However, some such editors do not remove the whitespace if you end up not +putting a line of code there, such as if you leave a blank line. As a result, +you end up with lines containing trailing whitespace. + +Git will warn you about patches that introduce trailing whitespace, and can +optionally strip the trailing whitespace for you; however, if applying a series +of patches, this may make later patches in the series fail by changing their +context lines. + + +4) Naming +--------- + +C is a Spartan language, and so should your naming be. Unlike Modula-2 +and Pascal programmers, C programmers do not use cute names like +ThisVariableIsATemporaryCounter. A C programmer would call that +variable ``tmp``, which is much easier to write, and not the least more +difficult to understand. + +HOWEVER, while mixed-case names are frowned upon, descriptive names for +global variables are a must. To call a global function ``foo`` is a +shooting offense. + +GLOBAL variables (to be used only if you **really** need them) need to +have descriptive names, as do global functions. If you have a function +that counts the number of active users, you should call that +``count_active_users()`` or similar, you should **not** call it ``cntusr()``. + +Encoding the type of a function into the name (so-called Hungarian +notation) is brain damaged - the compiler knows the types anyway and can +check those, and it only confuses the programmer. No wonder MicroSoft +makes buggy programs. + +LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have +some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called ``i``. +Calling it ``loop_counter`` is non-productive, if there is no chance of it +being mis-understood. Similarly, ``tmp`` can be just about any type of +variable that is used to hold a temporary value. + +If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another +problem, which is called the function-growth-hormone-imbalance syndrome. +See chapter 6 (Functions). + + +5) Typedefs +----------- + +Please don't use things like ``vps_t``. +It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers. When you see a + +.. code-block:: c + + + vps_t a; + +in the source, what does it mean? +In contrast, if it says + +.. code-block:: c + + struct virtual_container *a; + +you can actually tell what ``a`` is. + +Lots of people think that typedefs ``help readability``. Not so. They are +useful only for: + + (a) totally opaque objects (where the typedef is actively used to **hide** + what the object is). + + Example: ``pte_t`` etc. opaque objects that you can only access using + the proper accessor functions. + + .. note:: + + Opaqueness and ``accessor functions`` are not good in themselves. + The reason we have them for things like pte_t etc. is that there + really is absolutely **zero** portably accessible information there. + + (b) Clear integer types, where the abstraction **helps** avoid confusion + whether it is ``int`` or ``long``. + + u8/u16/u32 are perfectly fine typedefs, although they fit into + category (d) better than here. + + .. note:: + + Again - there needs to be a **reason** for this. If something is + ``unsigned long``, then there's no reason to do + + typedef unsigned long myflags_t; + + but if there is a clear reason for why it under certain circumstances + might be an ``unsigned int`` and under other configurations might be + ``unsigned long``, then by all means go ahead and use a typedef. + + (c) when you use sparse to literally create a **new** type for + type-checking. + + (d) New types which are identical to standard C99 types, in certain + exceptional circumstances. + + Although it would only take a short amount of time for the eyes and + brain to become accustomed to the standard types like ``uint32_t``, + some people object to their use anyway. + + Therefore, the Linux-specific ``u8/u16/u32/u64`` types and their + signed equivalents which are identical to standard types are + permitted -- although they are not mandatory in new code of your + own. + + When editing existing code which already uses one or the other set + of types, you should conform to the existing choices in that code. + + (e) Types safe for use in userspace. + + In certain structures which are visible to userspace, we cannot + require C99 types and cannot use the ``u32`` form above. Thus, we + use __u32 and similar types in all structures which are shared + with userspace. + +Maybe there are other cases too, but the rule should basically be to NEVER +EVER use a typedef unless you can clearly match one of those rules. + +In general, a pointer, or a struct that has elements that can reasonably +be directly accessed should **never** be a typedef. + + +6) Functions +------------ + +Functions should be short and sweet, and do just one thing. They should +fit on one or two screenfuls of text (the ISO/ANSI screen size is 80x24, +as we all know), and do one thing and do that well. + +The maximum length of a function is inversely proportional to the +complexity and indentation level of that function. So, if you have a +conceptually simple function that is just one long (but simple) +case-statement, where you have to do lots of small things for a lot of +different cases, it's OK to have a longer function. + +However, if you have a complex function, and you suspect that a +less-than-gifted first-year high-school student might not even +understand what the function is all about, you should adhere to the +maximum limits all the more closely. Use helper functions with +descriptive names (you can ask the compiler to in-line them if you think +it's performance-critical, and it will probably do a better job of it +than you would have done). + +Another measure of the function is the number of local variables. They +shouldn't exceed 5-10, or you're doing something wrong. Re-think the +function, and split it into smaller pieces. A human brain can +generally easily keep track of about 7 different things, anything more +and it gets confused. You know you're brilliant, but maybe you'd like +to understand what you did 2 weeks from now. + +In source files, separate functions with one blank line. If the function is +exported, the **EXPORT** macro for it should follow immediately after the +closing function brace line. E.g.: + +.. code-block:: c + + int system_is_up(void) + { + return system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING; + } + EXPORT_SYMBOL(system_is_up); + +In function prototypes, include parameter names with their data types. +Although this is not required by the C language, it is preferred in Linux +because it is a simple way to add valuable information for the reader. + + +7) Centralized exiting of functions +----------------------------------- + +Albeit deprecated by some people, the equivalent of the goto statement is +used frequently by compilers in form of the unconditional jump instruction. + +The goto statement comes in handy when a function exits from multiple +locations and some common work such as cleanup has to be done. If there is no +cleanup needed then just return directly. + +Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. An +example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees ``buffer``. +Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have to +renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make correctness +difficult to verify anyway. + +The rationale for using gotos is: + +- unconditional statements are easier to understand and follow +- nesting is reduced +- errors by not updating individual exit points when making + modifications are prevented +- saves the compiler work to optimize redundant code away ;) + +.. code-block:: c + + int fun(int a) + { + int result = 0; + char *buffer; + + buffer = kmalloc(SIZE, GFP_KERNEL); + if (!buffer) + return -ENOMEM; + + if (condition1) { + while (loop1) { + ... + } + result = 1; + goto out_free_buffer; + } + ... + out_free_buffer: + kfree(buffer); + return result; + } + +A common type of bug to be aware of is ``one err bugs`` which look like this: + +.. code-block:: c + + err: + kfree(foo->bar); + kfree(foo); + return ret; + +The bug in this code is that on some exit paths ``foo`` is NULL. Normally the +fix for this is to split it up into two error labels ``err_free_bar:`` and +``err_free_foo:``: + +.. code-block:: c + + err_free_bar: + kfree(foo->bar); + err_free_foo: + kfree(foo); + return ret; + +Ideally you should simulate errors to test all exit paths. + + +8) Commenting +------------- + +Comments are good, but there is also a danger of over-commenting. NEVER +try to explain HOW your code works in a comment: it's much better to +write the code so that the **working** is obvious, and it's a waste of +time to explain badly written code. + +Generally, you want your comments to tell WHAT your code does, not HOW. +Also, try to avoid putting comments inside a function body: if the +function is so complex that you need to separately comment parts of it, +you should probably go back to chapter 6 for a while. You can make +small comments to note or warn about something particularly clever (or +ugly), but try to avoid excess. Instead, put the comments at the head +of the function, telling people what it does, and possibly WHY it does +it. + +When commenting the kernel API functions, please use the kernel-doc format. +See the files at :ref:`Documentation/doc-guide/ <doc_guide>` and +``scripts/kernel-doc`` for details. + +The preferred style for long (multi-line) comments is: + +.. code-block:: c + + /* + * This is the preferred style for multi-line + * comments in the Linux kernel source code. + * Please use it consistently. + * + * Description: A column of asterisks on the left side, + * with beginning and ending almost-blank lines. + */ + +For files in net/ and drivers/net/ the preferred style for long (multi-line) +comments is a little different. + +.. code-block:: c + + /* The preferred comment style for files in net/ and drivers/net + * looks like this. + * + * It is nearly the same as the generally preferred comment style, + * but there is no initial almost-blank line. + */ + +It's also important to comment data, whether they are basic types or derived +types. To this end, use just one data declaration per line (no commas for +multiple data declarations). This leaves you room for a small comment on each +item, explaining its use. + + +9) You've made a mess of it +--------------------------- + +That's OK, we all do. You've probably been told by your long-time Unix +user helper that ``GNU emacs`` automatically formats the C sources for +you, and you've noticed that yes, it does do that, but the defaults it +uses are less than desirable (in fact, they are worse than random +typing - an infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never +make a good program). + +So, you can either get rid of GNU emacs, or change it to use saner +values. To do the latter, you can stick the following in your .emacs file: + +.. code-block:: none + + (defun c-lineup-arglist-tabs-only (ignored) + "Line up argument lists by tabs, not spaces" + (let* ((anchor (c-langelem-pos c-syntactic-element)) + (column (c-langelem-2nd-pos c-syntactic-element)) + (offset (- (1+ column) anchor)) + (steps (floor offset c-basic-offset))) + (* (max steps 1) + c-basic-offset))) + + (add-hook 'c-mode-common-hook + (lambda () + ;; Add kernel style + (c-add-style + "linux-tabs-only" + '("linux" (c-offsets-alist + (arglist-cont-nonempty + c-lineup-gcc-asm-reg + c-lineup-arglist-tabs-only)))))) + + (add-hook 'c-mode-hook + (lambda () + (let ((filename (buffer-file-name))) + ;; Enable kernel mode for the appropriate files + (when (and filename + (string-match (expand-file-name "~/src/linux-trees") + filename)) + (setq indent-tabs-mode t) + (setq show-trailing-whitespace t) + (c-set-style "linux-tabs-only"))))) + +This will make emacs go better with the kernel coding style for C +files below ``~/src/linux-trees``. + +But even if you fail in getting emacs to do sane formatting, not +everything is lost: use ``indent``. + +Now, again, GNU indent has the same brain-dead settings that GNU emacs +has, which is why you need to give it a few command line options. +However, that's not too bad, because even the makers of GNU indent +recognize the authority of K&R (the GNU people aren't evil, they are +just severely misguided in this matter), so you just give indent the +options ``-kr -i8`` (stands for ``K&R, 8 character indents``), or use +``scripts/Lindent``, which indents in the latest style. + +``indent`` has a lot of options, and especially when it comes to comment +re-formatting you may want to take a look at the man page. But +remember: ``indent`` is not a fix for bad programming. + +Note that you can also use the ``clang-format`` tool to help you with +these rules, to quickly re-format parts of your code automatically, +and to review full files in order to spot coding style mistakes, +typos and possible improvements. It is also handy for sorting ``#includes``, +for aligning variables/macros, for reflowing text and other similar tasks. +See the file :ref:`Documentation/process/clang-format.rst <clangformat>` +for more details. + + +10) Kconfig configuration files +------------------------------- + +For all of the Kconfig* configuration files throughout the source tree, +the indentation is somewhat different. Lines under a ``config`` definition +are indented with one tab, while help text is indented an additional two +spaces. Example:: + + config AUDIT + bool "Auditing support" + depends on NET + help + Enable auditing infrastructure that can be used with another + kernel subsystem, such as SELinux (which requires this for + logging of avc messages output). Does not do system-call + auditing without CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL. + +Seriously dangerous features (such as write support for certain +filesystems) should advertise this prominently in their prompt string:: + + config ADFS_FS_RW + bool "ADFS write support (DANGEROUS)" + depends on ADFS_FS + ... + +For full documentation on the configuration files, see the file +Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt. + + +11) Data structures +------------------- + +Data structures that have visibility outside the single-threaded +environment they are created and destroyed in should always have +reference counts. In the kernel, garbage collection doesn't exist (and +outside the kernel garbage collection is slow and inefficient), which +means that you absolutely **have** to reference count all your uses. + +Reference counting means that you can avoid locking, and allows multiple +users to have access to the data structure in parallel - and not having +to worry about the structure suddenly going away from under them just +because they slept or did something else for a while. + +Note that locking is **not** a replacement for reference counting. +Locking is used to keep data structures coherent, while reference +counting is a memory management technique. Usually both are needed, and +they are not to be confused with each other. + +Many data structures can indeed have two levels of reference counting, +when there are users of different ``classes``. The subclass count counts +the number of subclass users, and decrements the global count just once +when the subclass count goes to zero. + +Examples of this kind of ``multi-level-reference-counting`` can be found in +memory management (``struct mm_struct``: mm_users and mm_count), and in +filesystem code (``struct super_block``: s_count and s_active). + +Remember: if another thread can find your data structure, and you don't +have a reference count on it, you almost certainly have a bug. + + +12) Macros, Enums and RTL +------------------------- + +Names of macros defining constants and labels in enums are capitalized. + +.. code-block:: c + + #define CONSTANT 0x12345 + +Enums are preferred when defining several related constants. + +CAPITALIZED macro names are appreciated but macros resembling functions +may be named in lower case. + +Generally, inline functions are preferable to macros resembling functions. + +Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while block: + +.. code-block:: c + + #define macrofun(a, b, c) \ + do { \ + if (a == 5) \ + do_this(b, c); \ + } while (0) + +Things to avoid when using macros: + +1) macros that affect control flow: + +.. code-block:: c + + #define FOO(x) \ + do { \ + if (blah(x) < 0) \ + return -EBUGGERED; \ + } while (0) + +is a **very** bad idea. It looks like a function call but exits the ``calling`` +function; don't break the internal parsers of those who will read the code. + +2) macros that depend on having a local variable with a magic name: + +.. code-block:: c + + #define FOO(val) bar(index, val) + +might look like a good thing, but it's confusing as hell when one reads the +code and it's prone to breakage from seemingly innocent changes. + +3) macros with arguments that are used as l-values: FOO(x) = y; will +bite you if somebody e.g. turns FOO into an inline function. + +4) forgetting about precedence: macros defining constants using expressions +must enclose the expression in parentheses. Beware of similar issues with +macros using parameters. + +.. code-block:: c + + #define CONSTANT 0x4000 + #define CONSTEXP (CONSTANT | 3) + +5) namespace collisions when defining local variables in macros resembling +functions: + +.. code-block:: c + + #define FOO(x) \ + ({ \ + typeof(x) ret; \ + ret = calc_ret(x); \ + (ret); \ + }) + +ret is a common name for a local variable - __foo_ret is less likely +to collide with an existing variable. + +The cpp manual deals with macros exhaustively. The gcc internals manual also +covers RTL which is used frequently with assembly language in the kernel. + + +13) Printing kernel messages +---------------------------- + +Kernel developers like to be seen as literate. Do mind the spelling +of kernel messages to make a good impression. Do not use crippled +words like ``dont``; use ``do not`` or ``don't`` instead. Make the messages +concise, clear, and unambiguous. + +Kernel messages do not have to be terminated with a period. + +Printing numbers in parentheses (%d) adds no value and should be avoided. + +There are a number of driver model diagnostic macros in <linux/device.h> +which you should use to make sure messages are matched to the right device +and driver, and are tagged with the right level: dev_err(), dev_warn(), +dev_info(), and so forth. For messages that aren't associated with a +particular device, <linux/printk.h> defines pr_notice(), pr_info(), +pr_warn(), pr_err(), etc. + +Coming up with good debugging messages can be quite a challenge; and once +you have them, they can be a huge help for remote troubleshooting. However +debug message printing is handled differently than printing other non-debug +messages. While the other pr_XXX() functions print unconditionally, +pr_debug() does not; it is compiled out by default, unless either DEBUG is +defined or CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is set. That is true for dev_dbg() also, +and a related convention uses VERBOSE_DEBUG to add dev_vdbg() messages to +the ones already enabled by DEBUG. + +Many subsystems have Kconfig debug options to turn on -DDEBUG in the +corresponding Makefile; in other cases specific files #define DEBUG. And +when a debug message should be unconditionally printed, such as if it is +already inside a debug-related #ifdef section, printk(KERN_DEBUG ...) can be +used. + + +14) Allocating memory +--------------------- + +The kernel provides the following general purpose memory allocators: +kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kmalloc_array(), kcalloc(), vmalloc(), and +vzalloc(). Please refer to the API documentation for further information +about them. + +The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following: + +.. code-block:: c + + p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...); + +The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and +introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed +but the corresponding sizeof that is passed to a memory allocator is not. + +Casting the return value which is a void pointer is redundant. The conversion +from void pointer to any other pointer type is guaranteed by the C programming +language. + +The preferred form for allocating an array is the following: + +.. code-block:: c + + p = kmalloc_array(n, sizeof(...), ...); + +The preferred form for allocating a zeroed array is the following: + +.. code-block:: c + + p = kcalloc(n, sizeof(...), ...); + +Both forms check for overflow on the allocation size n * sizeof(...), +and return NULL if that occurred. + + +15) The inline disease +---------------------- + +There appears to be a common misperception that gcc has a magic "make me +faster" speedup option called ``inline``. While the use of inlines can be +appropriate (for example as a means of replacing macros, see Chapter 12), it +very often is not. Abundant use of the inline keyword leads to a much bigger +kernel, which in turn slows the system as a whole down, due to a bigger +icache footprint for the CPU and simply because there is less memory +available for the pagecache. Just think about it; a pagecache miss causes a +disk seek, which easily takes 5 milliseconds. There are a LOT of cpu cycles +that can go into these 5 milliseconds. + +A reasonable rule of thumb is to not put inline at functions that have more +than 3 lines of code in them. An exception to this rule are the cases where +a parameter is known to be a compiletime constant, and as a result of this +constantness you *know* the compiler will be able to optimize most of your +function away at compile time. For a good example of this later case, see +the kmalloc() inline function. + +Often people argue that adding inline to functions that are static and used +only once is always a win since there is no space tradeoff. While this is +technically correct, gcc is capable of inlining these automatically without +help, and the maintenance issue of removing the inline when a second user +appears outweighs the potential value of the hint that tells gcc to do +something it would have done anyway. + + +16) Function return values and names +------------------------------------ + +Functions can return values of many different kinds, and one of the +most common is a value indicating whether the function succeeded or +failed. Such a value can be represented as an error-code integer +(-Exxx = failure, 0 = success) or a ``succeeded`` boolean (0 = failure, +non-zero = success). + +Mixing up these two sorts of representations is a fertile source of +difficult-to-find bugs. If the C language included a strong distinction +between integers and booleans then the compiler would find these mistakes +for us... but it doesn't. To help prevent such bugs, always follow this +convention:: + + If the name of a function is an action or an imperative command, + the function should return an error-code integer. If the name + is a predicate, the function should return a "succeeded" boolean. + +For example, ``add work`` is a command, and the add_work() function returns 0 +for success or -EBUSY for failure. In the same way, ``PCI device present`` is +a predicate, and the pci_dev_present() function returns 1 if it succeeds in +finding a matching device or 0 if it doesn't. + +All EXPORTed functions must respect this convention, and so should all +public functions. Private (static) functions need not, but it is +recommended that they do. + +Functions whose return value is the actual result of a computation, rather +than an indication of whether the computation succeeded, are not subject to +this rule. Generally they indicate failure by returning some out-of-range +result. Typical examples would be functions that return pointers; they use +NULL or the ERR_PTR mechanism to report failure. + + +17) Don't re-invent the kernel macros +------------------------------------- + +The header file include/linux/kernel.h contains a number of macros that +you should use, rather than explicitly coding some variant of them yourself. +For example, if you need to calculate the length of an array, take advantage +of the macro + +.. code-block:: c + + #define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0])) + +Similarly, if you need to calculate the size of some structure member, use + +.. code-block:: c + + #define FIELD_SIZEOF(t, f) (sizeof(((t*)0)->f)) + +There are also min() and max() macros that do strict type checking if you +need them. Feel free to peruse that header file to see what else is already +defined that you shouldn't reproduce in your code. + + +18) Editor modelines and other cruft +------------------------------------ + +Some editors can interpret configuration information embedded in source files, +indicated with special markers. For example, emacs interprets lines marked +like this: + +.. code-block:: c + + -*- mode: c -*- + +Or like this: + +.. code-block:: c + + /* + Local Variables: + compile-command: "gcc -DMAGIC_DEBUG_FLAG foo.c" + End: + */ + +Vim interprets markers that look like this: + +.. code-block:: c + + /* vim:set sw=8 noet */ + +Do not include any of these in source files. People have their own personal +editor configurations, and your source files should not override them. This +includes markers for indentation and mode configuration. People may use their +own custom mode, or may have some other magic method for making indentation +work correctly. + + +19) Inline assembly +------------------- + +In architecture-specific code, you may need to use inline assembly to interface +with CPU or platform functionality. Don't hesitate to do so when necessary. +However, don't use inline assembly gratuitously when C can do the job. You can +and should poke hardware from C when possible. + +Consider writing simple helper functions that wrap common bits of inline +assembly, rather than repeatedly writing them with slight variations. Remember +that inline assembly can use C parameters. + +Large, non-trivial assembly functions should go in .S files, with corresponding +C prototypes defined in C header files. The C prototypes for assembly +functions should use ``asmlinkage``. + +You may need to mark your asm statement as volatile, to prevent GCC from +removing it if GCC doesn't notice any side effects. You don't always need to +do so, though, and doing so unnecessarily can limit optimization. + +When writing a single inline assembly statement containing multiple +instructions, put each instruction on a separate line in a separate quoted +string, and end each string except the last with ``\n\t`` to properly indent +the next instruction in the assembly output: + +.. code-block:: c + + asm ("magic %reg1, #42\n\t" + "more_magic %reg2, %reg3" + : /* outputs */ : /* inputs */ : /* clobbers */); + + +20) Conditional Compilation +--------------------------- + +Wherever possible, don't use preprocessor conditionals (#if, #ifdef) in .c +files; doing so makes code harder to read and logic harder to follow. Instead, +use such conditionals in a header file defining functions for use in those .c +files, providing no-op stub versions in the #else case, and then call those +functions unconditionally from .c files. The compiler will avoid generating +any code for the stub calls, producing identical results, but the logic will +remain easy to follow. + +Prefer to compile out entire functions, rather than portions of functions or +portions of expressions. Rather than putting an ifdef in an expression, factor +out part or all of the expression into a separate helper function and apply the +conditional to that function. + +If you have a function or variable which may potentially go unused in a +particular configuration, and the compiler would warn about its definition +going unused, mark the definition as __maybe_unused rather than wrapping it in +a preprocessor conditional. (However, if a function or variable *always* goes +unused, delete it.) + +Within code, where possible, use the IS_ENABLED macro to convert a Kconfig +symbol into a C boolean expression, and use it in a normal C conditional: + +.. code-block:: c + + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOMETHING)) { + ... + } + +The compiler will constant-fold the conditional away, and include or exclude +the block of code just as with an #ifdef, so this will not add any runtime +overhead. However, this approach still allows the C compiler to see the code +inside the block, and check it for correctness (syntax, types, symbol +references, etc). Thus, you still have to use an #ifdef if the code inside the +block references symbols that will not exist if the condition is not met. + +At the end of any non-trivial #if or #ifdef block (more than a few lines), +place a comment after the #endif on the same line, noting the conditional +expression used. For instance: + +.. code-block:: c + + #ifdef CONFIG_SOMETHING + ... + #endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */ + + +Appendix I) References +---------------------- + +The C Programming Language, Second Edition +by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie. +Prentice Hall, Inc., 1988. +ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), 0-13-110370-9 (hardback). + +The Practice of Programming +by Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike. +Addison-Wesley, Inc., 1999. +ISBN 0-201-61586-X. + +GNU manuals - where in compliance with K&R and this text - for cpp, gcc, +gcc internals and indent, all available from http://www.gnu.org/manual/ + +WG14 is the international standardization working group for the programming +language C, URL: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/ + +Kernel process/coding-style.rst, by greg@kroah.com at OLS 2002: +http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2002_kernel_codingstyle_talk/html/ |