| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 1 |  | 
 | 2 | 		Linux kernel coding style | 
 | 3 |  | 
 | 4 | This is a short document describing the preferred coding style for the | 
 | 5 | linux kernel.  Coding style is very personal, and I won't _force_ my | 
 | 6 | views on anybody, but this is what goes for anything that I have to be | 
 | 7 | able to maintain, and I'd prefer it for most other things too.  Please | 
 | 8 | at least consider the points made here. | 
 | 9 |  | 
 | 10 | First off, I'd suggest printing out a copy of the GNU coding standards, | 
 | 11 | and NOT read it.  Burn them, it's a great symbolic gesture. | 
 | 12 |  | 
 | 13 | Anyway, here goes: | 
 | 14 |  | 
 | 15 |  | 
 | 16 | 	 	Chapter 1: Indentation | 
 | 17 |  | 
 | 18 | Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8 characters. | 
 | 19 | There are heretic movements that try to make indentations 4 (or even 2!) | 
 | 20 | characters deep, and that is akin to trying to define the value of PI to | 
 | 21 | be 3. | 
 | 22 |  | 
 | 23 | Rationale: The whole idea behind indentation is to clearly define where | 
 | 24 | a block of control starts and ends.  Especially when you've been looking | 
 | 25 | at your screen for 20 straight hours, you'll find it a lot easier to see | 
 | 26 | how the indentation works if you have large indentations. | 
 | 27 |  | 
 | 28 | Now, some people will claim that having 8-character indentations makes | 
 | 29 | the code move too far to the right, and makes it hard to read on a | 
 | 30 | 80-character terminal screen.  The answer to that is that if you need | 
 | 31 | more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix | 
 | 32 | your program. | 
 | 33 |  | 
 | 34 | In short, 8-char indents make things easier to read, and have the added | 
 | 35 | benefit of warning you when you're nesting your functions too deep. | 
 | 36 | Heed that warning. | 
 | 37 |  | 
 | 38 | Don't put multiple statements on a single line unless you have | 
 | 39 | something to hide: | 
 | 40 |  | 
 | 41 | 	if (condition) do_this; | 
 | 42 | 	  do_something_everytime; | 
 | 43 |  | 
 | 44 | Outside of comments, documentation and except in Kconfig, spaces are never | 
 | 45 | used for indentation, and the above example is deliberately broken. | 
 | 46 |  | 
 | 47 | Get a decent editor and don't leave whitespace at the end of lines. | 
 | 48 |  | 
 | 49 |  | 
 | 50 | 		Chapter 2: Breaking long lines and strings | 
 | 51 |  | 
 | 52 | Coding style is all about readability and maintainability using commonly | 
 | 53 | available tools. | 
 | 54 |  | 
 | 55 | The limit on the length of lines is 80 columns and this is a hard limit. | 
 | 56 |  | 
 | 57 | Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks. | 
 | 58 | Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and are placed | 
 | 59 | substantially to the right. The same applies to function headers with a long | 
 | 60 | argument list. Long strings are as well broken into shorter strings. | 
 | 61 |  | 
 | 62 | void fun(int a, int b, int c) | 
 | 63 | { | 
 | 64 | 	if (condition) | 
 | 65 | 		printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with " | 
 | 66 | 						"3 parameters a: %u b: %u " | 
 | 67 | 						"c: %u \n", a, b, c); | 
 | 68 | 	else | 
 | 69 | 		next_statement; | 
 | 70 | } | 
 | 71 |  | 
 | 72 | 		Chapter 3: Placing Braces | 
 | 73 |  | 
 | 74 | The other issue that always comes up in C styling is the placement of | 
 | 75 | braces.  Unlike the indent size, there are few technical reasons to | 
 | 76 | choose one placement strategy over the other, but the preferred way, as | 
 | 77 | shown to us by the prophets Kernighan and Ritchie, is to put the opening | 
 | 78 | brace last on the line, and put the closing brace first, thusly: | 
 | 79 |  | 
 | 80 | 	if (x is true) { | 
 | 81 | 		we do y | 
 | 82 | 	} | 
 | 83 |  | 
 | 84 | However, there is one special case, namely functions: they have the | 
 | 85 | opening brace at the beginning of the next line, thus: | 
 | 86 |  | 
 | 87 | 	int function(int x) | 
 | 88 | 	{ | 
 | 89 | 		body of function | 
 | 90 | 	} | 
 | 91 |  | 
 | 92 | Heretic people all over the world have claimed that this inconsistency | 
 | 93 | is ...  well ...  inconsistent, but all right-thinking people know that | 
 | 94 | (a) K&R are _right_ and (b) K&R are right.  Besides, functions are | 
 | 95 | special anyway (you can't nest them in C). | 
 | 96 |  | 
 | 97 | Note that the closing brace is empty on a line of its own, _except_ in | 
 | 98 | the cases where it is followed by a continuation of the same statement, | 
 | 99 | ie a "while" in a do-statement or an "else" in an if-statement, like | 
 | 100 | this: | 
 | 101 |  | 
 | 102 | 	do { | 
 | 103 | 		body of do-loop | 
 | 104 | 	} while (condition); | 
 | 105 |  | 
 | 106 | and | 
 | 107 |  | 
 | 108 | 	if (x == y) { | 
 | 109 | 		.. | 
 | 110 | 	} else if (x > y) { | 
 | 111 | 		... | 
 | 112 | 	} else { | 
 | 113 | 		.... | 
 | 114 | 	} | 
 | 115 |  | 
 | 116 | Rationale: K&R. | 
 | 117 |  | 
 | 118 | Also, note that this brace-placement also minimizes the number of empty | 
 | 119 | (or almost empty) lines, without any loss of readability.  Thus, as the | 
 | 120 | supply of new-lines on your screen is not a renewable resource (think | 
 | 121 | 25-line terminal screens here), you have more empty lines to put | 
 | 122 | comments on. | 
 | 123 |  | 
 | 124 |  | 
 | 125 | 		Chapter 4: Naming | 
 | 126 |  | 
 | 127 | C is a Spartan language, and so should your naming be.  Unlike Modula-2 | 
 | 128 | and Pascal programmers, C programmers do not use cute names like | 
 | 129 | ThisVariableIsATemporaryCounter.  A C programmer would call that | 
 | 130 | variable "tmp", which is much easier to write, and not the least more | 
 | 131 | difficult to understand. | 
 | 132 |  | 
 | 133 | HOWEVER, while mixed-case names are frowned upon, descriptive names for | 
 | 134 | global variables are a must.  To call a global function "foo" is a | 
 | 135 | shooting offense. | 
 | 136 |  | 
 | 137 | GLOBAL variables (to be used only if you _really_ need them) need to | 
 | 138 | have descriptive names, as do global functions.  If you have a function | 
 | 139 | that counts the number of active users, you should call that | 
 | 140 | "count_active_users()" or similar, you should _not_ call it "cntusr()". | 
 | 141 |  | 
 | 142 | Encoding the type of a function into the name (so-called Hungarian | 
 | 143 | notation) is brain damaged - the compiler knows the types anyway and can | 
 | 144 | check those, and it only confuses the programmer.  No wonder MicroSoft | 
 | 145 | makes buggy programs. | 
 | 146 |  | 
 | 147 | LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point.  If you have | 
 | 148 | some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called "i". | 
 | 149 | Calling it "loop_counter" is non-productive, if there is no chance of it | 
 | 150 | being mis-understood.  Similarly, "tmp" can be just about any type of | 
 | 151 | variable that is used to hold a temporary value. | 
 | 152 |  | 
 | 153 | If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another | 
 | 154 | problem, which is called the function-growth-hormone-imbalance syndrome. | 
 | 155 | See next chapter. | 
 | 156 |  | 
 | 157 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 158 | 		Chapter 5: Typedefs | 
 | 159 |  | 
 | 160 | Please don't use things like "vps_t". | 
 | 161 |  | 
 | 162 | It's a _mistake_ to use typedef for structures and pointers. When you see a | 
 | 163 |  | 
 | 164 | 	vps_t a; | 
 | 165 |  | 
 | 166 | in the source, what does it mean? | 
 | 167 |  | 
 | 168 | In contrast, if it says | 
 | 169 |  | 
 | 170 | 	struct virtual_container *a; | 
 | 171 |  | 
 | 172 | you can actually tell what "a" is. | 
 | 173 |  | 
 | 174 | Lots of people think that typedefs "help readability". Not so. They are | 
 | 175 | useful only for: | 
 | 176 |  | 
 | 177 |  (a) totally opaque objects (where the typedef is actively used to _hide_ | 
 | 178 |      what the object is). | 
 | 179 |  | 
 | 180 |      Example: "pte_t" etc. opaque objects that you can only access using | 
 | 181 |      the proper accessor functions. | 
 | 182 |  | 
 | 183 |      NOTE! Opaqueness and "accessor functions" are not good in themselves. | 
 | 184 |      The reason we have them for things like pte_t etc. is that there | 
 | 185 |      really is absolutely _zero_ portably accessible information there. | 
 | 186 |  | 
 | 187 |  (b) Clear integer types, where the abstraction _helps_ avoid confusion | 
 | 188 |      whether it is "int" or "long". | 
 | 189 |  | 
 | 190 |      u8/u16/u32 are perfectly fine typedefs, although they fit into | 
 | 191 |      category (d) better than here. | 
 | 192 |  | 
 | 193 |      NOTE! Again - there needs to be a _reason_ for this. If something is | 
 | 194 |      "unsigned long", then there's no reason to do | 
 | 195 |  | 
 | 196 | 	typedef unsigned long myflags_t; | 
 | 197 |  | 
 | 198 |      but if there is a clear reason for why it under certain circumstances | 
 | 199 |      might be an "unsigned int" and under other configurations might be | 
 | 200 |      "unsigned long", then by all means go ahead and use a typedef. | 
 | 201 |  | 
 | 202 |  (c) when you use sparse to literally create a _new_ type for | 
 | 203 |      type-checking. | 
 | 204 |  | 
 | 205 |  (d) New types which are identical to standard C99 types, in certain | 
 | 206 |      exceptional circumstances. | 
 | 207 |  | 
 | 208 |      Although it would only take a short amount of time for the eyes and | 
 | 209 |      brain to become accustomed to the standard types like 'uint32_t', | 
 | 210 |      some people object to their use anyway. | 
 | 211 |  | 
 | 212 |      Therefore, the Linux-specific 'u8/u16/u32/u64' types and their | 
 | 213 |      signed equivalents which are identical to standard types are | 
 | 214 |      permitted -- although they are not mandatory in new code of your | 
 | 215 |      own. | 
 | 216 |  | 
 | 217 |      When editing existing code which already uses one or the other set | 
 | 218 |      of types, you should conform to the existing choices in that code. | 
 | 219 |  | 
 | 220 |  (e) Types safe for use in userspace. | 
 | 221 |  | 
 | 222 |      In certain structures which are visible to userspace, we cannot | 
 | 223 |      require C99 types and cannot use the 'u32' form above. Thus, we | 
 | 224 |      use __u32 and similar types in all structures which are shared | 
 | 225 |      with userspace. | 
 | 226 |  | 
 | 227 | Maybe there are other cases too, but the rule should basically be to NEVER | 
 | 228 | EVER use a typedef unless you can clearly match one of those rules. | 
 | 229 |  | 
 | 230 | In general, a pointer, or a struct that has elements that can reasonably | 
 | 231 | be directly accessed should _never_ be a typedef. | 
 | 232 |  | 
 | 233 |  | 
 | 234 | 		Chapter 6: Functions | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 235 |  | 
 | 236 | Functions should be short and sweet, and do just one thing.  They should | 
 | 237 | fit on one or two screenfuls of text (the ISO/ANSI screen size is 80x24, | 
 | 238 | as we all know), and do one thing and do that well. | 
 | 239 |  | 
 | 240 | The maximum length of a function is inversely proportional to the | 
 | 241 | complexity and indentation level of that function.  So, if you have a | 
 | 242 | conceptually simple function that is just one long (but simple) | 
 | 243 | case-statement, where you have to do lots of small things for a lot of | 
 | 244 | different cases, it's OK to have a longer function. | 
 | 245 |  | 
 | 246 | However, if you have a complex function, and you suspect that a | 
 | 247 | less-than-gifted first-year high-school student might not even | 
 | 248 | understand what the function is all about, you should adhere to the | 
 | 249 | maximum limits all the more closely.  Use helper functions with | 
 | 250 | descriptive names (you can ask the compiler to in-line them if you think | 
 | 251 | it's performance-critical, and it will probably do a better job of it | 
 | 252 | than you would have done). | 
 | 253 |  | 
 | 254 | Another measure of the function is the number of local variables.  They | 
 | 255 | shouldn't exceed 5-10, or you're doing something wrong.  Re-think the | 
 | 256 | function, and split it into smaller pieces.  A human brain can | 
 | 257 | generally easily keep track of about 7 different things, anything more | 
 | 258 | and it gets confused.  You know you're brilliant, but maybe you'd like | 
 | 259 | to understand what you did 2 weeks from now. | 
 | 260 |  | 
 | 261 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 262 | 		Chapter 7: Centralized exiting of functions | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 263 |  | 
 | 264 | Albeit deprecated by some people, the equivalent of the goto statement is | 
 | 265 | used frequently by compilers in form of the unconditional jump instruction. | 
 | 266 |  | 
 | 267 | The goto statement comes in handy when a function exits from multiple | 
 | 268 | locations and some common work such as cleanup has to be done. | 
 | 269 |  | 
 | 270 | The rationale is: | 
 | 271 |  | 
 | 272 | - unconditional statements are easier to understand and follow | 
 | 273 | - nesting is reduced | 
 | 274 | - errors by not updating individual exit points when making | 
 | 275 |     modifications are prevented | 
 | 276 | - saves the compiler work to optimize redundant code away ;) | 
 | 277 |  | 
| Jesper Juhl | dc3d28d | 2006-01-09 20:53:51 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 278 | int fun(int a) | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 279 | { | 
 | 280 | 	int result = 0; | 
 | 281 | 	char *buffer = kmalloc(SIZE); | 
 | 282 |  | 
 | 283 | 	if (buffer == NULL) | 
 | 284 | 		return -ENOMEM; | 
 | 285 |  | 
 | 286 | 	if (condition1) { | 
 | 287 | 		while (loop1) { | 
 | 288 | 			... | 
 | 289 | 		} | 
 | 290 | 		result = 1; | 
 | 291 | 		goto out; | 
 | 292 | 	} | 
 | 293 | 	... | 
 | 294 | out: | 
 | 295 | 	kfree(buffer); | 
 | 296 | 	return result; | 
 | 297 | } | 
 | 298 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 299 | 		Chapter 8: Commenting | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 300 |  | 
 | 301 | Comments are good, but there is also a danger of over-commenting.  NEVER | 
 | 302 | try to explain HOW your code works in a comment: it's much better to | 
 | 303 | write the code so that the _working_ is obvious, and it's a waste of | 
 | 304 | time to explain badly written code. | 
 | 305 |  | 
 | 306 | Generally, you want your comments to tell WHAT your code does, not HOW. | 
 | 307 | Also, try to avoid putting comments inside a function body: if the | 
 | 308 | function is so complex that you need to separately comment parts of it, | 
 | 309 | you should probably go back to chapter 5 for a while.  You can make | 
 | 310 | small comments to note or warn about something particularly clever (or | 
 | 311 | ugly), but try to avoid excess.  Instead, put the comments at the head | 
 | 312 | of the function, telling people what it does, and possibly WHY it does | 
 | 313 | it. | 
 | 314 |  | 
| Pekka J Enberg | e776eba | 2005-09-10 00:26:44 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 315 | When commenting the kernel API functions, please use the kerneldoc format. | 
 | 316 | See the files Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt and scripts/kernel-doc | 
 | 317 | for details. | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 318 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 319 | 		Chapter 9: You've made a mess of it | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 320 |  | 
 | 321 | That's OK, we all do.  You've probably been told by your long-time Unix | 
 | 322 | user helper that "GNU emacs" automatically formats the C sources for | 
 | 323 | you, and you've noticed that yes, it does do that, but the defaults it | 
 | 324 | uses are less than desirable (in fact, they are worse than random | 
 | 325 | typing - an infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never | 
 | 326 | make a good program). | 
 | 327 |  | 
 | 328 | So, you can either get rid of GNU emacs, or change it to use saner | 
 | 329 | values.  To do the latter, you can stick the following in your .emacs file: | 
 | 330 |  | 
 | 331 | (defun linux-c-mode () | 
 | 332 |   "C mode with adjusted defaults for use with the Linux kernel." | 
 | 333 |   (interactive) | 
 | 334 |   (c-mode) | 
 | 335 |   (c-set-style "K&R") | 
 | 336 |   (setq tab-width 8) | 
 | 337 |   (setq indent-tabs-mode t) | 
 | 338 |   (setq c-basic-offset 8)) | 
 | 339 |  | 
 | 340 | This will define the M-x linux-c-mode command.  When hacking on a | 
 | 341 | module, if you put the string -*- linux-c -*- somewhere on the first | 
 | 342 | two lines, this mode will be automatically invoked. Also, you may want | 
 | 343 | to add | 
 | 344 |  | 
 | 345 | (setq auto-mode-alist (cons '("/usr/src/linux.*/.*\\.[ch]$" . linux-c-mode) | 
 | 346 | 			auto-mode-alist)) | 
 | 347 |  | 
 | 348 | to your .emacs file if you want to have linux-c-mode switched on | 
 | 349 | automagically when you edit source files under /usr/src/linux. | 
 | 350 |  | 
 | 351 | But even if you fail in getting emacs to do sane formatting, not | 
 | 352 | everything is lost: use "indent". | 
 | 353 |  | 
 | 354 | Now, again, GNU indent has the same brain-dead settings that GNU emacs | 
 | 355 | has, which is why you need to give it a few command line options. | 
 | 356 | However, that's not too bad, because even the makers of GNU indent | 
 | 357 | recognize the authority of K&R (the GNU people aren't evil, they are | 
 | 358 | just severely misguided in this matter), so you just give indent the | 
 | 359 | options "-kr -i8" (stands for "K&R, 8 character indents"), or use | 
 | 360 | "scripts/Lindent", which indents in the latest style. | 
 | 361 |  | 
 | 362 | "indent" has a lot of options, and especially when it comes to comment | 
 | 363 | re-formatting you may want to take a look at the man page.  But | 
 | 364 | remember: "indent" is not a fix for bad programming. | 
 | 365 |  | 
 | 366 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 367 | 		Chapter 10: Configuration-files | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 368 |  | 
 | 369 | For configuration options (arch/xxx/Kconfig, and all the Kconfig files), | 
 | 370 | somewhat different indentation is used. | 
 | 371 |  | 
 | 372 | Help text is indented with 2 spaces. | 
 | 373 |  | 
 | 374 | if CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL | 
 | 375 | 	tristate CONFIG_BOOM | 
 | 376 | 	default n | 
 | 377 | 	help | 
 | 378 | 	  Apply nitroglycerine inside the keyboard (DANGEROUS) | 
 | 379 | 	bool CONFIG_CHEER | 
 | 380 | 	depends on CONFIG_BOOM | 
 | 381 | 	default y | 
 | 382 | 	help | 
 | 383 | 	  Output nice messages when you explode | 
 | 384 | endif | 
 | 385 |  | 
 | 386 | Generally, CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL should surround all options not considered | 
 | 387 | stable. All options that are known to trash data (experimental write- | 
 | 388 | support for file-systems, for instance) should be denoted (DANGEROUS), other | 
 | 389 | experimental options should be denoted (EXPERIMENTAL). | 
 | 390 |  | 
 | 391 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 392 | 		Chapter 11: Data structures | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 393 |  | 
 | 394 | Data structures that have visibility outside the single-threaded | 
 | 395 | environment they are created and destroyed in should always have | 
 | 396 | reference counts.  In the kernel, garbage collection doesn't exist (and | 
 | 397 | outside the kernel garbage collection is slow and inefficient), which | 
 | 398 | means that you absolutely _have_ to reference count all your uses. | 
 | 399 |  | 
 | 400 | Reference counting means that you can avoid locking, and allows multiple | 
 | 401 | users to have access to the data structure in parallel - and not having | 
 | 402 | to worry about the structure suddenly going away from under them just | 
 | 403 | because they slept or did something else for a while. | 
 | 404 |  | 
 | 405 | Note that locking is _not_ a replacement for reference counting. | 
 | 406 | Locking is used to keep data structures coherent, while reference | 
 | 407 | counting is a memory management technique.  Usually both are needed, and | 
 | 408 | they are not to be confused with each other. | 
 | 409 |  | 
 | 410 | Many data structures can indeed have two levels of reference counting, | 
 | 411 | when there are users of different "classes".  The subclass count counts | 
 | 412 | the number of subclass users, and decrements the global count just once | 
 | 413 | when the subclass count goes to zero. | 
 | 414 |  | 
 | 415 | Examples of this kind of "multi-level-reference-counting" can be found in | 
 | 416 | memory management ("struct mm_struct": mm_users and mm_count), and in | 
 | 417 | filesystem code ("struct super_block": s_count and s_active). | 
 | 418 |  | 
 | 419 | Remember: if another thread can find your data structure, and you don't | 
 | 420 | have a reference count on it, you almost certainly have a bug. | 
 | 421 |  | 
 | 422 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 423 | 		Chapter 12: Macros, Enums and RTL | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 424 |  | 
 | 425 | Names of macros defining constants and labels in enums are capitalized. | 
 | 426 |  | 
 | 427 | #define CONSTANT 0x12345 | 
 | 428 |  | 
 | 429 | Enums are preferred when defining several related constants. | 
 | 430 |  | 
 | 431 | CAPITALIZED macro names are appreciated but macros resembling functions | 
 | 432 | may be named in lower case. | 
 | 433 |  | 
 | 434 | Generally, inline functions are preferable to macros resembling functions. | 
 | 435 |  | 
 | 436 | Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while block: | 
 | 437 |  | 
 | 438 | #define macrofun(a, b, c) 			\ | 
 | 439 | 	do {					\ | 
 | 440 | 		if (a == 5)			\ | 
 | 441 | 			do_this(b, c);		\ | 
 | 442 | 	} while (0) | 
 | 443 |  | 
 | 444 | Things to avoid when using macros: | 
 | 445 |  | 
 | 446 | 1) macros that affect control flow: | 
 | 447 |  | 
 | 448 | #define FOO(x)					\ | 
 | 449 | 	do {					\ | 
 | 450 | 		if (blah(x) < 0)		\ | 
 | 451 | 			return -EBUGGERED;	\ | 
 | 452 | 	} while(0) | 
 | 453 |  | 
 | 454 | is a _very_ bad idea.  It looks like a function call but exits the "calling" | 
 | 455 | function; don't break the internal parsers of those who will read the code. | 
 | 456 |  | 
 | 457 | 2) macros that depend on having a local variable with a magic name: | 
 | 458 |  | 
 | 459 | #define FOO(val) bar(index, val) | 
 | 460 |  | 
 | 461 | might look like a good thing, but it's confusing as hell when one reads the | 
 | 462 | code and it's prone to breakage from seemingly innocent changes. | 
 | 463 |  | 
 | 464 | 3) macros with arguments that are used as l-values: FOO(x) = y; will | 
 | 465 | bite you if somebody e.g. turns FOO into an inline function. | 
 | 466 |  | 
 | 467 | 4) forgetting about precedence: macros defining constants using expressions | 
 | 468 | must enclose the expression in parentheses. Beware of similar issues with | 
 | 469 | macros using parameters. | 
 | 470 |  | 
 | 471 | #define CONSTANT 0x4000 | 
 | 472 | #define CONSTEXP (CONSTANT | 3) | 
 | 473 |  | 
 | 474 | The cpp manual deals with macros exhaustively. The gcc internals manual also | 
 | 475 | covers RTL which is used frequently with assembly language in the kernel. | 
 | 476 |  | 
 | 477 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 478 | 		Chapter 13: Printing kernel messages | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 479 |  | 
 | 480 | Kernel developers like to be seen as literate. Do mind the spelling | 
 | 481 | of kernel messages to make a good impression. Do not use crippled | 
 | 482 | words like "dont" and use "do not" or "don't" instead. | 
 | 483 |  | 
 | 484 | Kernel messages do not have to be terminated with a period. | 
 | 485 |  | 
 | 486 | Printing numbers in parentheses (%d) adds no value and should be avoided. | 
 | 487 |  | 
 | 488 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 489 | 		Chapter 14: Allocating memory | 
| Pekka J Enberg | af4e5a2 | 2005-09-16 19:28:11 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 490 |  | 
 | 491 | The kernel provides the following general purpose memory allocators: | 
 | 492 | kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kcalloc(), and vmalloc().  Please refer to the API | 
 | 493 | documentation for further information about them. | 
 | 494 |  | 
 | 495 | The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following: | 
 | 496 |  | 
 | 497 | 	p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...); | 
 | 498 |  | 
 | 499 | The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and | 
 | 500 | introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed | 
 | 501 | but the corresponding sizeof that is passed to a memory allocator is not. | 
 | 502 |  | 
 | 503 | Casting the return value which is a void pointer is redundant. The conversion | 
 | 504 | from void pointer to any other pointer type is guaranteed by the C programming | 
 | 505 | language. | 
 | 506 |  | 
 | 507 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 508 | 		Chapter 15: The inline disease | 
| Arjan van de Ven | a771f2b | 2006-01-08 01:05:04 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 509 |  | 
 | 510 | There appears to be a common misperception that gcc has a magic "make me | 
 | 511 | faster" speedup option called "inline". While the use of inlines can be | 
 | 512 | appropriate (for example as a means of replacing macros, see Chapter 11), it | 
 | 513 | very often is not. Abundant use of the inline keyword leads to a much bigger | 
 | 514 | kernel, which in turn slows the system as a whole down, due to a bigger | 
 | 515 | icache footprint for the CPU and simply because there is less memory | 
 | 516 | available for the pagecache. Just think about it; a pagecache miss causes a | 
 | 517 | disk seek, which easily takes 5 miliseconds. There are a LOT of cpu cycles | 
 | 518 | that can go into these 5 miliseconds. | 
 | 519 |  | 
 | 520 | A reasonable rule of thumb is to not put inline at functions that have more | 
 | 521 | than 3 lines of code in them. An exception to this rule are the cases where | 
 | 522 | a parameter is known to be a compiletime constant, and as a result of this | 
 | 523 | constantness you *know* the compiler will be able to optimize most of your | 
 | 524 | function away at compile time. For a good example of this later case, see | 
 | 525 | the kmalloc() inline function. | 
 | 526 |  | 
 | 527 | Often people argue that adding inline to functions that are static and used | 
 | 528 | only once is always a win since there is no space tradeoff. While this is | 
 | 529 | technically correct, gcc is capable of inlining these automatically without | 
 | 530 | help, and the maintenance issue of removing the inline when a second user | 
 | 531 | appears outweighs the potential value of the hint that tells gcc to do | 
 | 532 | something it would have done anyway. | 
 | 533 |  | 
 | 534 |  | 
| Alan Stern | c16a02d | 2006-09-29 02:01:21 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 535 | 		Chapter 16: Function return values and names | 
 | 536 |  | 
 | 537 | Functions can return values of many different kinds, and one of the | 
 | 538 | most common is a value indicating whether the function succeeded or | 
 | 539 | failed.  Such a value can be represented as an error-code integer | 
 | 540 | (-Exxx = failure, 0 = success) or a "succeeded" boolean (0 = failure, | 
 | 541 | non-zero = success). | 
 | 542 |  | 
 | 543 | Mixing up these two sorts of representations is a fertile source of | 
 | 544 | difficult-to-find bugs.  If the C language included a strong distinction | 
 | 545 | between integers and booleans then the compiler would find these mistakes | 
 | 546 | for us... but it doesn't.  To help prevent such bugs, always follow this | 
 | 547 | convention: | 
 | 548 |  | 
 | 549 | 	If the name of a function is an action or an imperative command, | 
 | 550 | 	the function should return an error-code integer.  If the name | 
 | 551 | 	is a predicate, the function should return a "succeeded" boolean. | 
 | 552 |  | 
 | 553 | For example, "add work" is a command, and the add_work() function returns 0 | 
 | 554 | for success or -EBUSY for failure.  In the same way, "PCI device present" is | 
 | 555 | a predicate, and the pci_dev_present() function returns 1 if it succeeds in | 
 | 556 | finding a matching device or 0 if it doesn't. | 
 | 557 |  | 
 | 558 | All EXPORTed functions must respect this convention, and so should all | 
 | 559 | public functions.  Private (static) functions need not, but it is | 
 | 560 | recommended that they do. | 
 | 561 |  | 
 | 562 | Functions whose return value is the actual result of a computation, rather | 
 | 563 | than an indication of whether the computation succeeded, are not subject to | 
 | 564 | this rule.  Generally they indicate failure by returning some out-of-range | 
 | 565 | result.  Typical examples would be functions that return pointers; they use | 
 | 566 | NULL or the ERR_PTR mechanism to report failure. | 
 | 567 |  | 
 | 568 |  | 
| Arjan van de Ven | a771f2b | 2006-01-08 01:05:04 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 569 |  | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 570 | 		Appendix I: References | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 571 |  | 
 | 572 | The C Programming Language, Second Edition | 
 | 573 | by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie. | 
 | 574 | Prentice Hall, Inc., 1988. | 
 | 575 | ISBN 0-13-110362-8 (paperback), 0-13-110370-9 (hardback). | 
 | 576 | URL: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/ | 
 | 577 |  | 
 | 578 | The Practice of Programming | 
 | 579 | by Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike. | 
 | 580 | Addison-Wesley, Inc., 1999. | 
 | 581 | ISBN 0-201-61586-X. | 
 | 582 | URL: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/tpop/ | 
 | 583 |  | 
 | 584 | GNU manuals - where in compliance with K&R and this text - for cpp, gcc, | 
| Xose Vazquez Perez | 5b0ed2c | 2006-01-08 01:02:49 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 585 | gcc internals and indent, all available from http://www.gnu.org/manual/ | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 586 |  | 
 | 587 | WG14 is the international standardization working group for the programming | 
| Xose Vazquez Perez | 5b0ed2c | 2006-01-08 01:02:49 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 588 | language C, URL: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/ | 
 | 589 |  | 
 | 590 | Kernel CodingStyle, by greg@kroah.com at OLS 2002: | 
 | 591 | http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2002_kernel_codingstyle_talk/html/ | 
| Linus Torvalds | 1da177e | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 592 |  | 
 | 593 | -- | 
| Randy Dunlap | 226a6b8 | 2006-06-23 02:05:58 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 594 | Last updated on 30 April 2006. |