diff options
author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@ppc970.osdl.org> | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@ppc970.osdl.org> | 2005-04-16 15:20:36 -0700 |
commit | 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2 (patch) | |
tree | 0bba044c4ce775e45a88a51686b5d9f90697ea9d /Documentation/CodingStyle | |
download | linux-3.10-1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2.tar.gz linux-3.10-1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2.tar.bz2 linux-3.10-1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2.zip |
Linux-2.6.12-rc2v2.6.12-rc2
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/CodingStyle')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/CodingStyle | 431 |
1 files changed, 431 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/CodingStyle b/Documentation/CodingStyle new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..f25b3953f51 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/CodingStyle @@ -0,0 +1,431 @@ + + 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 ;) + +int fun(int ) +{ + 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. + + + 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. + + + Chapter 11: Macros, Enums, Inline functions 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 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. + + + Chapter 13: 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 + +WG14 is the international standardization working group for the programming +language C, URL: http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG14/ + +-- +Last updated on 16 February 2004 by a community effort on LKML. |