Adding upstream version 6.6.15.upstream/6.6.15

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 216 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..aa8ed08261
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+Coding Guidelines
+=================
+
+This document describes how to write Rust code in the kernel.
+
+
+Style & formatting
+------------------
+
+The code should be formatted using ``rustfmt``. In this way, a person
+contributing from time to time to the kernel does not need to learn and
+remember one more style guide. More importantly, reviewers and maintainers
+do not need to spend time pointing out style issues anymore, and thus
+less patch roundtrips may be needed to land a change.
+
+.. note:: Conventions on comments and documentation are not checked by
+  ``rustfmt``. Thus those are still needed to be taken care of.
+
+The default settings of ``rustfmt`` are used. This means the idiomatic Rust
+style is followed. For instance, 4 spaces are used for indentation rather
+than tabs.
+
+It is convenient to instruct editors/IDEs to format while typing,
+when saving or at commit time. However, if for some reason reformatting
+the entire kernel Rust sources is needed at some point, the following can be
+run::
+
+	make LLVM=1 rustfmt
+
+It is also possible to check if everything is formatted (printing a diff
+otherwise), for instance for a CI, with::
+
+	make LLVM=1 rustfmtcheck
+
+Like ``clang-format`` for the rest of the kernel, ``rustfmt`` works on
+individual files, and does not require a kernel configuration. Sometimes it may
+even work with broken code.
+
+
+Comments
+--------
+
+"Normal" comments (i.e. ``//``, rather than code documentation which starts
+with ``///`` or ``//!``) are written in Markdown the same way as documentation
+comments are, even though they will not be rendered. This improves consistency,
+simplifies the rules and allows to move content between the two kinds of
+comments more easily. For instance:
+
+.. code-block:: rust
+
+	// `object` is ready to be handled now.
+	f(object);
+
+Furthermore, just like documentation, comments are capitalized at the beginning
+of a sentence and ended with a period (even if it is a single sentence). This
+includes ``// SAFETY:``, ``// TODO:`` and other "tagged" comments, e.g.:
+
+.. code-block:: rust
+
+	// FIXME: The error should be handled properly.
+
+Comments should not be used for documentation purposes: comments are intended
+for implementation details, not users. This distinction is useful even if the
+reader of the source file is both an implementor and a user of an API. In fact,
+sometimes it is useful to use both comments and documentation at the same time.
+For instance, for a ``TODO`` list or to comment on the documentation itself.
+For the latter case, comments can be inserted in the middle; that is, closer to
+the line of documentation to be commented. For any other case, comments are
+written after the documentation, e.g.:
+
+.. code-block:: rust
+
+	/// Returns a new [`Foo`].
+	///
+	/// # Examples
+	///
+	// TODO: Find a better example.
+	/// ```
+	/// let foo = f(42);
+	/// ```
+	// FIXME: Use fallible approach.
+	pub fn f(x: i32) -> Foo {
+	    // ...
+	}
+
+One special kind of comments are the ``// SAFETY:`` comments. These must appear
+before every ``unsafe`` block, and they explain why the code inside the block is
+correct/sound, i.e. why it cannot trigger undefined behavior in any case, e.g.:
+
+.. code-block:: rust
+
+	// SAFETY: `p` is valid by the safety requirements.
+	unsafe { *p = 0; }
+
+``// SAFETY:`` comments are not to be confused with the ``# Safety`` sections
+in code documentation. ``# Safety`` sections specify the contract that callers
+(for functions) or implementors (for traits) need to abide by. ``// SAFETY:``
+comments show why a call (for functions) or implementation (for traits) actually
+respects the preconditions stated in a ``# Safety`` section or the language
+reference.
+
+
+Code documentation
+------------------
+
+Rust kernel code is not documented like C kernel code (i.e. via kernel-doc).
+Instead, the usual system for documenting Rust code is used: the ``rustdoc``
+tool, which uses Markdown (a lightweight markup language).
+
+To learn Markdown, there are many guides available out there. For instance,
+the one at:
+
+	https://commonmark.org/help/
+
+This is how a well-documented Rust function may look like:
+
+.. code-block:: rust
+
+	/// Returns the contained [`Some`] value, consuming the `self` value,
+	/// without checking that the value is not [`None`].
+	///
+	/// # Safety
+	///
+	/// Calling this method on [`None`] is *[undefined behavior]*.
+	///
+	/// [undefined behavior]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html
+	///
+	/// # Examples
+	///
+	/// ```
+	/// let x = Some("air");
+	/// assert_eq!(unsafe { x.unwrap_unchecked() }, "air");
+	/// ```
+	pub unsafe fn unwrap_unchecked(self) -> T {
+	    match self {
+	        Some(val) => val,
+
+	        // SAFETY: The safety contract must be upheld by the caller.
+	        None => unsafe { hint::unreachable_unchecked() },
+	    }
+	}
+
+This example showcases a few ``rustdoc`` features and some conventions followed
+in the kernel:
+
+  - The first paragraph must be a single sentence briefly describing what
+    the documented item does. Further explanations must go in extra paragraphs.
+
+  - Unsafe functions must document their safety preconditions under
+    a ``# Safety`` section.
+
+  - While not shown here, if a function may panic, the conditions under which
+    that happens must be described under a ``# Panics`` section.
+
+    Please note that panicking should be very rare and used only with a good
+    reason. In almost all cases, a fallible approach should be used, typically
+    returning a ``Result``.
+
+  - If providing examples of usage would help readers, they must be written in
+    a section called ``# Examples``.
+
+  - Rust items (functions, types, constants...) must be linked appropriately
+    (``rustdoc`` will create a link automatically).
+
+  - Any ``unsafe`` block must be preceded by a ``// SAFETY:`` comment
+    describing why the code inside is sound.
+
+    While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded,
+    writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been
+    taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that
+    there are no *extra* implicit constraints.
+
+To learn more about how to write documentation for Rust and extra features,
+please take a look at the ``rustdoc`` book at:
+
+	https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc/how-to-write-documentation.html
+
+
+Naming
+------
+
+Rust kernel code follows the usual Rust naming conventions:
+
+	https://rust-lang.github.io/api-guidelines/naming.html
+
+When existing C concepts (e.g. macros, functions, objects...) are wrapped into
+a Rust abstraction, a name as close as reasonably possible to the C side should
+be used in order to avoid confusion and to improve readability when switching
+back and forth between the C and Rust sides. For instance, macros such as
+``pr_info`` from C are named the same in the Rust side.
+
+Having said that, casing should be adjusted to follow the Rust naming
+conventions, and namespacing introduced by modules and types should not be
+repeated in the item names. For instance, when wrapping constants like:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+	#define GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN	0
+	#define GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_OUT	1
+
+The equivalent in Rust may look like (ignoring documentation):
+
+.. code-block:: rust
+
+	pub mod gpio {
+	    pub enum LineDirection {
+	        In = bindings::GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN as _,
+	        Out = bindings::GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_OUT as _,
+	    }
+	}
+
+That is, the equivalent of ``GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN`` would be referred to as
+``gpio::LineDirection::In``. In particular, it should not be named
+``gpio::gpio_line_direction::GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN``.