mirror of
https://github.com/AetherDroid/android_kernel_samsung_on5xelte.git
synced 2025-09-05 07:57:45 -04:00
Fixed MTP to work with TWRP
This commit is contained in:
commit
f6dfaef42e
50820 changed files with 20846062 additions and 0 deletions
871
Documentation/CodingStyle
Normal file
871
Documentation/CodingStyle
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,871 @@
|
|||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
The preferred way to ease multiple indentation levels in a switch statement is
|
||||
to align the "switch" and its subordinate "case" labels in the same column
|
||||
instead of "double-indenting" the "case" labels. E.g.:
|
||||
|
||||
switch (suffix) {
|
||||
case 'G':
|
||||
case 'g':
|
||||
mem <<= 30;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case 'M':
|
||||
case 'm':
|
||||
mem <<= 20;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case 'K':
|
||||
case 'k':
|
||||
mem <<= 10;
|
||||
/* fall through */
|
||||
default:
|
||||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Don't put multiple statements on a single line unless you have
|
||||
something to hide:
|
||||
|
||||
if (condition) do_this;
|
||||
do_something_everytime;
|
||||
|
||||
Don't put multiple assignments on a single line either. Kernel coding style
|
||||
is super simple. Avoid tricky expressions.
|
||||
|
||||
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 strongly
|
||||
preferred limit.
|
||||
|
||||
Statements longer than 80 columns will be broken into sensible chunks, unless
|
||||
exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does not hide
|
||||
information. 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. However, never break user-visible strings such as
|
||||
printk messages, because that breaks the ability to grep for them.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 3: Placing Braces and Spaces
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
This applies to all non-function statement blocks (if, switch, for,
|
||||
while, do). E.g.:
|
||||
|
||||
switch (action) {
|
||||
case KOBJ_ADD:
|
||||
return "add";
|
||||
case KOBJ_REMOVE:
|
||||
return "remove";
|
||||
case KOBJ_CHANGE:
|
||||
return "change";
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not unnecessarily use braces where a single statement will do.
|
||||
|
||||
if (condition)
|
||||
action();
|
||||
|
||||
and
|
||||
|
||||
if (condition)
|
||||
do_this();
|
||||
else
|
||||
do_that();
|
||||
|
||||
This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a single
|
||||
statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches:
|
||||
|
||||
if (condition) {
|
||||
do_this();
|
||||
do_that();
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
otherwise();
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
3.1: Spaces
|
||||
|
||||
Linux kernel style for use of spaces depends (mostly) on
|
||||
function-versus-keyword usage. Use a space after (most) keywords. The
|
||||
notable exceptions are sizeof, typeof, alignof, and __attribute__, which look
|
||||
somewhat like functions (and are usually used with parentheses in Linux,
|
||||
although they are not required in the language, as in: "sizeof info" after
|
||||
"struct fileinfo info;" is declared).
|
||||
|
||||
So use a space after these keywords:
|
||||
if, switch, case, for, do, while
|
||||
but not with sizeof, typeof, alignof, or __attribute__. E.g.,
|
||||
s = sizeof(struct file);
|
||||
|
||||
Do not add spaces around (inside) parenthesized expressions. This example is
|
||||
*bad*:
|
||||
|
||||
s = sizeof( struct file );
|
||||
|
||||
When declaring pointer data or a function that returns a pointer type, the
|
||||
preferred use of '*' is adjacent to the data name or function name and not
|
||||
adjacent to the type name. Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
char *linux_banner;
|
||||
unsigned long long memparse(char *ptr, char **retptr);
|
||||
char *match_strdup(substring_t *s);
|
||||
|
||||
Use one space around (on each side of) most binary and ternary operators,
|
||||
such as any of these:
|
||||
|
||||
= + - < > * / % | & ^ <= >= == != ? :
|
||||
|
||||
but no space after unary operators:
|
||||
& * + - ~ ! sizeof typeof alignof __attribute__ defined
|
||||
|
||||
no space before the postfix increment & decrement unary operators:
|
||||
++ --
|
||||
|
||||
no space after the prefix increment & decrement unary operators:
|
||||
++ --
|
||||
|
||||
and no space around the '.' and "->" structure member operators.
|
||||
|
||||
Do not leave trailing whitespace at the ends of lines. Some editors with
|
||||
"smart" indentation will insert whitespace at the beginning of new lines as
|
||||
appropriate, so you can start typing the next line of code right away.
|
||||
However, some such editors do not remove the whitespace if you end up not
|
||||
putting a line of code there, such as if you leave a blank line. As a result,
|
||||
you end up with lines containing trailing whitespace.
|
||||
|
||||
Git will warn you about patches that introduce trailing whitespace, and can
|
||||
optionally strip the trailing whitespace for you; however, if applying a series
|
||||
of patches, this may make later patches in the series fail by changing their
|
||||
context lines.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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 chapter 6 (Functions).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
In source files, separate functions with one blank line. If the function is
|
||||
exported, the EXPORT* macro for it should follow immediately after the closing
|
||||
function brace line. E.g.:
|
||||
|
||||
int system_is_up(void)
|
||||
{
|
||||
return system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING;
|
||||
}
|
||||
EXPORT_SYMBOL(system_is_up);
|
||||
|
||||
In function prototypes, include parameter names with their data types.
|
||||
Although this is not required by the C language, it is preferred in Linux
|
||||
because it is a simple way to add valuable information for the reader.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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. If there is no
|
||||
cleanup needed then just return directly.
|
||||
|
||||
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 6 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 kernel-doc format.
|
||||
See the files Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt and scripts/kernel-doc
|
||||
for details.
|
||||
|
||||
Linux style for comments is the C89 "/* ... */" style.
|
||||
Don't use C99-style "// ..." comments.
|
||||
|
||||
The preferred style for long (multi-line) comments is:
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* This is the preferred style for multi-line
|
||||
* comments in the Linux kernel source code.
|
||||
* Please use it consistently.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Description: A column of asterisks on the left side,
|
||||
* with beginning and ending almost-blank lines.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
For files in net/ and drivers/net/ the preferred style for long (multi-line)
|
||||
comments is a little different.
|
||||
|
||||
/* The preferred comment style for files in net/ and drivers/net
|
||||
* looks like this.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* It is nearly the same as the generally preferred comment style,
|
||||
* but there is no initial almost-blank line.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
It's also important to comment data, whether they are basic types or derived
|
||||
types. To this end, use just one data declaration per line (no commas for
|
||||
multiple data declarations). This leaves you room for a small comment on each
|
||||
item, explaining its use.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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 c-lineup-arglist-tabs-only (ignored)
|
||||
"Line up argument lists by tabs, not spaces"
|
||||
(let* ((anchor (c-langelem-pos c-syntactic-element))
|
||||
(column (c-langelem-2nd-pos c-syntactic-element))
|
||||
(offset (- (1+ column) anchor))
|
||||
(steps (floor offset c-basic-offset)))
|
||||
(* (max steps 1)
|
||||
c-basic-offset)))
|
||||
|
||||
(add-hook 'c-mode-common-hook
|
||||
(lambda ()
|
||||
;; Add kernel style
|
||||
(c-add-style
|
||||
"linux-tabs-only"
|
||||
'("linux" (c-offsets-alist
|
||||
(arglist-cont-nonempty
|
||||
c-lineup-gcc-asm-reg
|
||||
c-lineup-arglist-tabs-only))))))
|
||||
|
||||
(add-hook 'c-mode-hook
|
||||
(lambda ()
|
||||
(let ((filename (buffer-file-name)))
|
||||
;; Enable kernel mode for the appropriate files
|
||||
(when (and filename
|
||||
(string-match (expand-file-name "~/src/linux-trees")
|
||||
filename))
|
||||
(setq indent-tabs-mode t)
|
||||
(c-set-style "linux-tabs-only")))))
|
||||
|
||||
This will make emacs go better with the kernel coding style for C
|
||||
files below ~/src/linux-trees.
|
||||
|
||||
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: Kconfig configuration files
|
||||
|
||||
For all of the Kconfig* configuration files throughout the source tree,
|
||||
the indentation is somewhat different. Lines under a "config" definition
|
||||
are indented with one tab, while help text is indented an additional two
|
||||
spaces. Example:
|
||||
|
||||
config AUDIT
|
||||
bool "Auditing support"
|
||||
depends on NET
|
||||
help
|
||||
Enable auditing infrastructure that can be used with another
|
||||
kernel subsystem, such as SELinux (which requires this for
|
||||
logging of avc messages output). Does not do system-call
|
||||
auditing without CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL.
|
||||
|
||||
Seriously dangerous features (such as write support for certain
|
||||
filesystems) should advertise this prominently in their prompt string:
|
||||
|
||||
config ADFS_FS_RW
|
||||
bool "ADFS write support (DANGEROUS)"
|
||||
depends on ADFS_FS
|
||||
...
|
||||
|
||||
For full documentation on the configuration files, see the file
|
||||
Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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"; use "do not" or "don't" instead. Make the messages
|
||||
concise, clear, and unambiguous.
|
||||
|
||||
Kernel messages do not have to be terminated with a period.
|
||||
|
||||
Printing numbers in parentheses (%d) adds no value and should be avoided.
|
||||
|
||||
There are a number of driver model diagnostic macros in <linux/device.h>
|
||||
which you should use to make sure messages are matched to the right device
|
||||
and driver, and are tagged with the right level: dev_err(), dev_warn(),
|
||||
dev_info(), and so forth. For messages that aren't associated with a
|
||||
particular device, <linux/printk.h> defines pr_notice(), pr_info(),
|
||||
pr_warn(), pr_err(), etc.
|
||||
|
||||
Coming up with good debugging messages can be quite a challenge; and once
|
||||
you have them, they can be a huge help for remote troubleshooting. However
|
||||
debug message printing is handled differently than printing other non-debug
|
||||
messages. While the other pr_XXX() functions print unconditionally,
|
||||
pr_debug() does not; it is compiled out by default, unless either DEBUG is
|
||||
defined or CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG is set. That is true for dev_dbg() also,
|
||||
and a related convention uses VERBOSE_DEBUG to add dev_vdbg() messages to
|
||||
the ones already enabled by DEBUG.
|
||||
|
||||
Many subsystems have Kconfig debug options to turn on -DDEBUG in the
|
||||
corresponding Makefile; in other cases specific files #define DEBUG. And
|
||||
when a debug message should be unconditionally printed, such as if it is
|
||||
already inside a debug-related #ifdef section, printk(KERN_DEBUG ...) can be
|
||||
used.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 14: Allocating memory
|
||||
|
||||
The kernel provides the following general purpose memory allocators:
|
||||
kmalloc(), kzalloc(), kmalloc_array(), kcalloc(), vmalloc(), and
|
||||
vzalloc(). 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.
|
||||
|
||||
The preferred form for allocating an array is the following:
|
||||
|
||||
p = kmalloc_array(n, sizeof(...), ...);
|
||||
|
||||
The preferred form for allocating a zeroed array is the following:
|
||||
|
||||
p = kcalloc(n, sizeof(...), ...);
|
||||
|
||||
Both forms check for overflow on the allocation size n * sizeof(...),
|
||||
and return NULL if that occurred.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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 12), 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 milliseconds. There are a LOT of cpu cycles
|
||||
that can go into these 5 milliseconds.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 17: Don't re-invent the kernel macros
|
||||
|
||||
The header file include/linux/kernel.h contains a number of macros that
|
||||
you should use, rather than explicitly coding some variant of them yourself.
|
||||
For example, if you need to calculate the length of an array, take advantage
|
||||
of the macro
|
||||
|
||||
#define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
|
||||
|
||||
Similarly, if you need to calculate the size of some structure member, use
|
||||
|
||||
#define FIELD_SIZEOF(t, f) (sizeof(((t*)0)->f))
|
||||
|
||||
There are also min() and max() macros that do strict type checking if you
|
||||
need them. Feel free to peruse that header file to see what else is already
|
||||
defined that you shouldn't reproduce in your code.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 18: Editor modelines and other cruft
|
||||
|
||||
Some editors can interpret configuration information embedded in source files,
|
||||
indicated with special markers. For example, emacs interprets lines marked
|
||||
like this:
|
||||
|
||||
-*- mode: c -*-
|
||||
|
||||
Or like this:
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Local Variables:
|
||||
compile-command: "gcc -DMAGIC_DEBUG_FLAG foo.c"
|
||||
End:
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
Vim interprets markers that look like this:
|
||||
|
||||
/* vim:set sw=8 noet */
|
||||
|
||||
Do not include any of these in source files. People have their own personal
|
||||
editor configurations, and your source files should not override them. This
|
||||
includes markers for indentation and mode configuration. People may use their
|
||||
own custom mode, or may have some other magic method for making indentation
|
||||
work correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 19: Inline assembly
|
||||
|
||||
In architecture-specific code, you may need to use inline assembly to interface
|
||||
with CPU or platform functionality. Don't hesitate to do so when necessary.
|
||||
However, don't use inline assembly gratuitously when C can do the job. You can
|
||||
and should poke hardware from C when possible.
|
||||
|
||||
Consider writing simple helper functions that wrap common bits of inline
|
||||
assembly, rather than repeatedly writing them with slight variations. Remember
|
||||
that inline assembly can use C parameters.
|
||||
|
||||
Large, non-trivial assembly functions should go in .S files, with corresponding
|
||||
C prototypes defined in C header files. The C prototypes for assembly
|
||||
functions should use "asmlinkage".
|
||||
|
||||
You may need to mark your asm statement as volatile, to prevent GCC from
|
||||
removing it if GCC doesn't notice any side effects. You don't always need to
|
||||
do so, though, and doing so unnecessarily can limit optimization.
|
||||
|
||||
When writing a single inline assembly statement containing multiple
|
||||
instructions, put each instruction on a separate line in a separate quoted
|
||||
string, and end each string except the last with \n\t to properly indent the
|
||||
next instruction in the assembly output:
|
||||
|
||||
asm ("magic %reg1, #42\n\t"
|
||||
"more_magic %reg2, %reg3"
|
||||
: /* outputs */ : /* inputs */ : /* clobbers */);
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
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/
|
||||
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue