| .. _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; |
| fallthrough; |
| 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 use commas to avoid using braces: |
| |
| .. code-block:: c |
| |
| if (condition) |
| do_this(), do_that(); |
| |
| Always uses braces for multiple statements: |
| |
| .. code-block:: c |
| |
| if (condition) { |
| do_this(); |
| do_that(); |
| } |
| |
| 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 preferred limit on the length of a single line is 80 columns. |
| |
| Statements longer than 80 columns should 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. A very commonly used style |
| is to align descendants to a function open parenthesis. |
| |
| These same rules are applied 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 your naming conventions should follow suit. |
| 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 asinine - the compiler knows the types anyway and can check |
| those, and it only confuses the programmer. |
| |
| 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). |
| |
| For symbol names and documentation, avoid introducing new usage of |
| 'master / slave' (or 'slave' independent of 'master') and 'blacklist / |
| whitelist'. |
| |
| Recommended replacements for 'master / slave' are: |
| '{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}' |
| '{initiator,requester} / {target,responder}' |
| '{controller,host} / {device,worker,proxy}' |
| 'leader / follower' |
| 'director / performer' |
| |
| Recommended replacements for 'blacklist/whitelist' are: |
| 'denylist / allowlist' |
| 'blocklist / passlist' |
| |
| Exceptions for introducing new usage is to maintain a userspace ABI/API, |
| or when updating code for an existing (as of 2020) hardware or protocol |
| specification that mandates those terms. For new specifications |
| translate specification usage of the terminology to the kernel coding |
| standard where possible. |
| |
| 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); |
| |
| 6.1) Function prototypes |
| ************************ |
| |
| 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. |
| |
| Do not use the ``extern`` keyword with function declarations as this makes |
| lines longer and isn't strictly necessary. |
| |
| When writing function prototypes, please keep the `order of elements regular |
| <https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/CAHk-=wiOCLRny5aifWNhr621kYrJwhfURsa0vFPeUEm8mF0ufg@mail.gmail.com/>`_. |
| For example, using this function declaration example:: |
| |
| __init void * __must_check action(enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, |
| char *fmt, ...) __printf(4, 5) __malloc; |
| |
| The preferred order of elements for a function prototype is: |
| |
| - storage class (below, ``static __always_inline``, noting that ``__always_inline`` |
| is technically an attribute but is treated like ``inline``) |
| - storage class attributes (here, ``__init`` -- i.e. section declarations, but also |
| things like ``__cold``) |
| - return type (here, ``void *``) |
| - return type attributes (here, ``__must_check``) |
| - function name (here, ``action``) |
| - function parameters (here, ``(enum magic value, size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...)``, |
| noting that parameter names should always be included) |
| - function parameter attributes (here, ``__printf(4, 5)``) |
| - function behavior attributes (here, ``__malloc``) |
| |
| Note that for a function **definition** (i.e. the actual function body), |
| the compiler does not allow function parameter attributes after the |
| function parameters. In these cases, they should go after the storage |
| class attributes (e.g. note the changed position of ``__printf(4, 5)`` |
| below, compared to the **declaration** example above):: |
| |
| static __always_inline __init __printf(4, 5) void * __must_check action(enum magic value, |
| size_t size, u8 count, char *fmt, ...) __malloc |
| { |
| ... |
| } |
| |
| 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))) |
| |
| (dir-locals-set-class-variables |
| 'linux-kernel |
| '((c-mode . ( |
| (c-basic-offset . 8) |
| (c-label-minimum-indentation . 0) |
| (c-offsets-alist . ( |
| (arglist-close . c-lineup-arglist-tabs-only) |
| (arglist-cont-nonempty . |
| (c-lineup-gcc-asm-reg c-lineup-arglist-tabs-only)) |
| (arglist-intro . +) |
| (brace-list-intro . +) |
| (c . c-lineup-C-comments) |
| (case-label . 0) |
| (comment-intro . c-lineup-comment) |
| (cpp-define-intro . +) |
| (cpp-macro . -1000) |
| (cpp-macro-cont . +) |
| (defun-block-intro . +) |
| (else-clause . 0) |
| (func-decl-cont . +) |
| (inclass . +) |
| (inher-cont . c-lineup-multi-inher) |
| (knr-argdecl-intro . 0) |
| (label . -1000) |
| (statement . 0) |
| (statement-block-intro . +) |
| (statement-case-intro . +) |
| (statement-cont . +) |
| (substatement . +) |
| )) |
| (indent-tabs-mode . t) |
| (show-trailing-whitespace . t) |
| )))) |
| |
| (dir-locals-set-directory-class |
| (expand-file-name "~/src/linux-trees") |
| 'linux-kernel) |
| |
| 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.rst. |
| |
| |
| 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 incorrect |
| contractions 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/dev_printk.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. :ref:`Documentation/core-api/memory-allocation.rst |
| <memory_allocation>` |
| |
| 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. |
| |
| These generic allocation functions all emit a stack dump on failure when used |
| without __GFP_NOWARN so there is no use in emitting an additional failure |
| message when NULL is returned. |
| |
| 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) Using bool |
| -------------- |
| |
| The Linux kernel bool type is an alias for the C99 _Bool type. bool values can |
| only evaluate to 0 or 1, and implicit or explicit conversion to bool |
| automatically converts the value to true or false. When using bool types the |
| !! construction is not needed, which eliminates a class of bugs. |
| |
| When working with bool values the true and false definitions should be used |
| instead of 1 and 0. |
| |
| bool function return types and stack variables are always fine to use whenever |
| appropriate. Use of bool is encouraged to improve readability and is often a |
| better option than 'int' for storing boolean values. |
| |
| Do not use bool if cache line layout or size of the value matters, as its size |
| and alignment varies based on the compiled architecture. Structures that are |
| optimized for alignment and size should not use bool. |
| |
| If a structure has many true/false values, consider consolidating them into a |
| bitfield with 1 bit members, or using an appropriate fixed width type, such as |
| u8. |
| |
| Similarly for function arguments, many true/false values can be consolidated |
| into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often be a more |
| readable alternative if the call-sites have naked true/false constants. |
| |
| Otherwise limited use of bool in structures and arguments can improve |
| readability. |
| |
| 18) 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 sizeof_field(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. |
| |
| |
| 19) 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. |
| |
| |
| 20) 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 */); |
| |
| |
| 21) 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 https://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 :ref:`process/coding-style.rst <codingstyle>`, by greg@kroah.com at OLS 2002: |
| http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2002_kernel_codingstyle_talk/html/ |