595 строки
22 KiB
Plaintext
595 строки
22 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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.
|
|
|
|
Don't put multiple statements on a single line unless you have
|
|
something to hide:
|
|
|
|
if (condition) do_this;
|
|
do_something_everytime;
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 2: Breaking long lines and strings
|
|
|
|
Coding style is all about readability and maintainability using commonly
|
|
available tools.
|
|
|
|
The limit on the length of lines is 80 columns and this is a hard limit.
|
|
|
|
Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks.
|
|
Descendants are always substantially shorter than the parent and are placed
|
|
substantially to the right. The same applies to function headers with a long
|
|
argument list. Long strings are as well broken into shorter strings.
|
|
|
|
void fun(int a, int b, int c)
|
|
{
|
|
if (condition)
|
|
printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with "
|
|
"3 parameters a: %u b: %u "
|
|
"c: %u \n", a, b, c);
|
|
else
|
|
next_statement;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Chapter 3: Placing Braces
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
if (x is true) {
|
|
we do y
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
However, there is one special case, namely functions: they have the
|
|
opening brace at the beginning of the next line, thus:
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
do {
|
|
body of do-loop
|
|
} while (condition);
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 4: Naming
|
|
|
|
C is a Spartan language, and so should your naming be. 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 brain damaged - the compiler knows the types anyway and can
|
|
check those, and it only confuses the programmer. No wonder MicroSoft
|
|
makes buggy programs.
|
|
|
|
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 next chapter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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
|
|
|
|
vps_t a;
|
|
|
|
in the source, what does it mean?
|
|
|
|
In contrast, if it says
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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.
|
|
|
|
The rationale 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 ;)
|
|
|
|
int fun(int a)
|
|
{
|
|
int result = 0;
|
|
char *buffer = kmalloc(SIZE);
|
|
|
|
if (buffer == NULL)
|
|
return -ENOMEM;
|
|
|
|
if (condition1) {
|
|
while (loop1) {
|
|
...
|
|
}
|
|
result = 1;
|
|
goto out;
|
|
}
|
|
...
|
|
out:
|
|
kfree(buffer);
|
|
return result;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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 5 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 kerneldoc format.
|
|
See the files Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt and scripts/kernel-doc
|
|
for details.
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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:
|
|
|
|
(defun linux-c-mode ()
|
|
"C mode with adjusted defaults for use with the Linux kernel."
|
|
(interactive)
|
|
(c-mode)
|
|
(c-set-style "K&R")
|
|
(setq tab-width 8)
|
|
(setq indent-tabs-mode t)
|
|
(setq c-basic-offset 8))
|
|
|
|
This will define the M-x linux-c-mode command. When hacking on a
|
|
module, if you put the string -*- linux-c -*- somewhere on the first
|
|
two lines, this mode will be automatically invoked. Also, you may want
|
|
to add
|
|
|
|
(setq auto-mode-alist (cons '("/usr/src/linux.*/.*\\.[ch]$" . linux-c-mode)
|
|
auto-mode-alist))
|
|
|
|
to your .emacs file if you want to have linux-c-mode switched on
|
|
automagically when you edit source files under /usr/src/linux.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 10: Configuration-files
|
|
|
|
For configuration options (arch/xxx/Kconfig, and all the Kconfig files),
|
|
somewhat different indentation is used.
|
|
|
|
Help text is indented with 2 spaces.
|
|
|
|
if CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
|
|
tristate CONFIG_BOOM
|
|
default n
|
|
help
|
|
Apply nitroglycerine inside the keyboard (DANGEROUS)
|
|
bool CONFIG_CHEER
|
|
depends on CONFIG_BOOM
|
|
default y
|
|
help
|
|
Output nice messages when you explode
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
Generally, CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL should surround all options not considered
|
|
stable. All options that are known to trash data (experimental write-
|
|
support for file-systems, for instance) should be denoted (DANGEROUS), other
|
|
experimental options should be denoted (EXPERIMENTAL).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 12: Macros, Enums and RTL
|
|
|
|
Names of macros defining constants and labels in enums are capitalized.
|
|
|
|
#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:
|
|
|
|
#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:
|
|
|
|
#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:
|
|
|
|
#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.
|
|
|
|
#define CONSTANT 0x4000
|
|
#define CONSTEXP (CONSTANT | 3)
|
|
|
|
The cpp manual deals with macros exhaustively. The gcc internals manual also
|
|
covers RTL which is used frequently with assembly language in the kernel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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 crippled
|
|
words like "dont" and use "do not" or "don't" instead.
|
|
|
|
Kernel messages do not have to be terminated with a period.
|
|
|
|
Printing numbers in parentheses (%d) adds no value and should be avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 14: Allocating memory
|
|
|
|
The kernel provides the following general purpose memory allocators:
|
|
kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kcalloc(), and vmalloc(). Please refer to the API
|
|
documentation for further information about them.
|
|
|
|
The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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 11), 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 miliseconds. There are a LOT of cpu cycles
|
|
that can go into these 5 miliseconds.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
URL: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
|
|
|
|
The Practice of Programming
|
|
by Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike.
|
|
Addison-Wesley, Inc., 1999.
|
|
ISBN 0-201-61586-X.
|
|
URL: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/tpop/
|
|
|
|
GNU manuals - where in compliance with K&R and this text - for cpp, gcc,
|
|
gcc internals and indent, all available from http://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 CodingStyle, by greg@kroah.com at OLS 2002:
|
|
http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2002_kernel_codingstyle_talk/html/
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Last updated on 30 April 2006.
|