1272 lines
44 KiB
ReStructuredText
1272 lines
44 KiB
ReStructuredText
|
.. _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 */
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
22) Do not crash the kernel
|
||
|
---------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
In general, the decision to crash the kernel belongs to the user, rather
|
||
|
than to the kernel developer.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Avoid panic()
|
||
|
*************
|
||
|
|
||
|
panic() should be used with care and primarily only during system boot.
|
||
|
panic() is, for example, acceptable when running out of memory during boot and
|
||
|
not being able to continue.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Use WARN() rather than BUG()
|
||
|
****************************
|
||
|
|
||
|
Do not add new code that uses any of the BUG() variants, such as BUG(),
|
||
|
BUG_ON(), or VM_BUG_ON(). Instead, use a WARN*() variant, preferably
|
||
|
WARN_ON_ONCE(), and possibly with recovery code. Recovery code is not
|
||
|
required if there is no reasonable way to at least partially recover.
|
||
|
|
||
|
"I'm too lazy to do error handling" is not an excuse for using BUG(). Major
|
||
|
internal corruptions with no way of continuing may still use BUG(), but need
|
||
|
good justification.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
|
||
|
**************************************************
|
||
|
|
||
|
WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it
|
||
|
is common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur
|
||
|
multiple times. This can fill up and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow
|
||
|
the system enough that the excessive logging turns into its own, additional
|
||
|
problem.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Do not WARN lightly
|
||
|
*******************
|
||
|
|
||
|
WARN*() is intended for unexpected, this-should-never-happen situations.
|
||
|
WARN*() macros are not to be used for anything that is expected to happen
|
||
|
during normal operation. These are not pre- or post-condition asserts, for
|
||
|
example. Again: WARN*() must not be used for a condition that is expected
|
||
|
to trigger easily, for example, by user space actions. pr_warn_once() is a
|
||
|
possible alternative, if you need to notify the user of a problem.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Do not worry about panic_on_warn users
|
||
|
**************************************
|
||
|
|
||
|
A few more words about panic_on_warn: Remember that ``panic_on_warn`` is an
|
||
|
available kernel option, and that many users set this option. This is why
|
||
|
there is a "Do not WARN lightly" writeup, above. However, the existence of
|
||
|
panic_on_warn users is not a valid reason to avoid the judicious use
|
||
|
WARN*(). That is because, whoever enables panic_on_warn has explicitly
|
||
|
asked the kernel to crash if a WARN*() fires, and such users must be
|
||
|
prepared to deal with the consequences of a system that is somewhat more
|
||
|
likely to crash.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Use BUILD_BUG_ON() for compile-time assertions
|
||
|
**********************************************
|
||
|
|
||
|
The use of BUILD_BUG_ON() is acceptable and encouraged, because it is a
|
||
|
compile-time assertion that has no effect at runtime.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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/
|