| 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. |