| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 		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: 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 6: 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 ;) | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2006-01-09 20:53:51 -08:00
										 |  |  | int fun(int a) | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
										 |  |  | { | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 	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 7: 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. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-09-10 00:26:44 -07:00
										 |  |  | 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. | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 		Chapter 8: 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 9: 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 10: 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. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2006-01-08 01:05:04 -08:00
										 |  |  | 		Chapter 11: Macros, Enums and RTL | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 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 12: 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. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-09-16 19:28:11 -07:00
										 |  |  | 		Chapter 13: 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. | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2006-01-08 01:05:04 -08:00
										 |  |  | 		Chapter 14: 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 15: References | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | 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, | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2006-01-08 01:02:49 -08:00
										 |  |  | gcc internals and indent, all available from http://www.gnu.org/manual/ | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | WG14 is the international standardization working group for the programming | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2006-01-08 01:02:49 -08:00
										 |  |  | 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/ | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
										 |  |  | 
 | 
					
						
							|  |  |  | -- | 
					
						
							| 
									
										
										
										
											2006-01-08 01:05:04 -08:00
										 |  |  | Last updated on 30 December 2005 by a community effort on LKML. |