1 |
1625 |
jcastillo |
|
2 |
|
|
Linux kernel coding style
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
This is a short document describing the preferred coding style for the
|
5 |
|
|
linux kernel. Coding style is very personal, and I won't _force_ my
|
6 |
|
|
views on anybody, but this is what goes for anything that I have to be
|
7 |
|
|
able to maintain, and I'd prefer it for most other things too. Please
|
8 |
|
|
at least consider the points made here.
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
First off, I'd suggest printing out a copy of the GNU coding standards,
|
11 |
|
|
and NOT reading it. Burn them, it's a great symbolic gesture.
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Anyway, here goes:
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
Chapter 1: Indentation
|
17 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8 characters.
|
19 |
|
|
There are heretic movements that try to make indentations 4 (or even 2!)
|
20 |
|
|
characters deep, and that is akin to trying to define the value of PI to
|
21 |
|
|
be 3.
|
22 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
Rationale: The whole idea behind indentation is to clearly define where
|
24 |
|
|
a block of control starts and ends. Especially when you've been looking
|
25 |
|
|
at your screen for 20 straight hours, you'll find it a lot easier to see
|
26 |
|
|
how the indentation works if you have large indentations.
|
27 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
Now, some people will claim that having 8-character indentations makes
|
29 |
|
|
the code move too far to the right, and makes it hard to read on a
|
30 |
|
|
80-character terminal screen. The answer to that is that if you need
|
31 |
|
|
more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix
|
32 |
|
|
your program.
|
33 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
In short, 8-char indents make things easier to read, and have the added
|
35 |
|
|
benefit of warning you when you're nesting your functions too deep.
|
36 |
|
|
Heed that warning.
|
37 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
Chapter 2: Placing Braces
|
40 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
The other issue that always comes up in C styling is the placement of
|
42 |
|
|
braces. Unlike the indent size, there are few technical reasons to
|
43 |
|
|
choose one placement strategy over the other, but the preferred way, as
|
44 |
|
|
shown to us by the prophets Kernighan and Ritchie, is to put the opening
|
45 |
|
|
brace last on the line, and put the closing brace first, thusly:
|
46 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
if (x is true) {
|
48 |
|
|
we do y
|
49 |
|
|
}
|
50 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
However, there is one special case, namely functions: they have the
|
52 |
|
|
opening brace at the beginning of the next line, thus:
|
53 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
int function(int x)
|
55 |
|
|
{
|
56 |
|
|
body of function
|
57 |
|
|
}
|
58 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
Heretic people all over the world have claimed that this inconsistency
|
60 |
|
|
is ... well ... inconsistent, but all right-thinking people know that
|
61 |
|
|
(a) K&R are _right_ and (b) K&R are right. Besides, functions are
|
62 |
|
|
special anyway (you can't nest them in C (well, you can in gcc, actually,
|
63 |
|
|
but this is horribly nonstandard, so we will ignore it)).
|
64 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
Note that the closing brace is empty on a line of its own, _except_ in
|
66 |
|
|
the cases where it is followed by a continuation of the same statement,
|
67 |
|
|
ie a "while" in a do-statement or an "else" in an if-statement, like
|
68 |
|
|
this:
|
69 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
do {
|
71 |
|
|
body of do-loop
|
72 |
|
|
} while (condition);
|
73 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
and
|
75 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
if (x == y) {
|
77 |
|
|
..
|
78 |
|
|
} else if (x > y) {
|
79 |
|
|
...
|
80 |
|
|
} else {
|
81 |
|
|
....
|
82 |
|
|
}
|
83 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
Rationale: K&R.
|
85 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
Also, note that this brace-placement also minimizes the number of empty
|
87 |
|
|
(or almost empty) lines, without any loss of readability. Thus, as the
|
88 |
|
|
supply of new-lines on your screen is not a renewable resource (think
|
89 |
|
|
25-line terminal screens here), you have more empty lines to put
|
90 |
|
|
comments on.
|
91 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
Chapter 3: Naming
|
94 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
C is a Spartan language, and so should your naming be. Unlike Modula-2
|
96 |
|
|
and Pascal programmers, C programmers do not use cute names like
|
97 |
|
|
ThisVariableIsATemporaryCounter. A C programmer would call that
|
98 |
|
|
variable "tmp", which is much easier to write, and not the least more
|
99 |
|
|
difficult to understand.
|
100 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
HOWEVER, while mixed-case names are frowned upon, descriptive names for
|
102 |
|
|
global variables are a must. To call a global function "foo" is a
|
103 |
|
|
shooting offense.
|
104 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
GLOBAL variables (to be used only if you _really_ need them) need to
|
106 |
|
|
have descriptive names, as do global functions. If you have a function
|
107 |
|
|
that counts the number of active users, you should call that
|
108 |
|
|
"count_active_users()" or similar, you should _not_ call it "cntusr()".
|
109 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
Encoding the type of a function into the name (so-called Hungarian
|
111 |
|
|
notation) is brain damaged - the compiler knows the types anyway and can
|
112 |
|
|
check those, and it only confuses the programmer. No wonder MicroSoft
|
113 |
|
|
makes buggy programs.
|
114 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
LOCAL variable names should be short, and to the point. If you have
|
116 |
|
|
some random integer loop counter, it should probably be called "i".
|
117 |
|
|
Calling it "loop_counter" is non-productive, if there is no chance of it
|
118 |
|
|
being mis-understood. Similarly, "tmp" can be just about any type of
|
119 |
|
|
variable that is used to hold a temporary value.
|
120 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
If you are afraid to mix up your local variable names, you have another
|
122 |
|
|
problem, which is called the function-growth-hormone-imbalance syndrome.
|
123 |
|
|
See next chapter.
|
124 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
Chapter 4: Functions
|
127 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
Functions should be short and sweet, and do just one thing. They should
|
129 |
|
|
fit on one or two screenfuls of text (the ISO/ANSI screen size is 80x24,
|
130 |
|
|
as we all know), and do one thing and do that well.
|
131 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
The maximum length of a function is inversely proportional to the
|
133 |
|
|
complexity and indentation level of that function. So, if you have a
|
134 |
|
|
conceptually simple function that is just one long (but simple)
|
135 |
|
|
case-statement, where you have to do lots of small things for a lot of
|
136 |
|
|
different cases, it's OK to have a longer function.
|
137 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
However, if you have a complex function, and you suspect that a
|
139 |
|
|
less-than-gifted first-year high-school student might not even
|
140 |
|
|
understand what the function is all about, you should adhere to the
|
141 |
|
|
maximum limits all the more closely. Use helper functions with
|
142 |
|
|
descriptive names (you can ask the compiler to in-line them if you think
|
143 |
|
|
it's performance-critical, and it will probably do a better job of it
|
144 |
|
|
that you would have done).
|
145 |
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
Another measure of the function is the number of local variables. They
|
147 |
|
|
shouldn't exceed 5-10, or you're doing something wrong. Re-think the
|
148 |
|
|
function, and split it into smaller pieces. A human brain can
|
149 |
|
|
generally easily keep track of about 7 different things, anything more
|
150 |
|
|
and it gets confused. You know you're brilliant, but maybe you'd like
|
151 |
|
|
to understand what you did 2 weeks from now.
|
152 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
Chapter 5: Commenting
|
155 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
Comments are good, but there is also a danger of over-commenting. NEVER
|
157 |
|
|
try to explain HOW your code works in a comment: it's much better to
|
158 |
|
|
write the code so that the _working_ is obvious, and it's a waste of
|
159 |
|
|
time to explain badly written code.
|
160 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
Generally, you want your comments to tell WHAT your code does, not HOW.
|
162 |
|
|
Also, try to avoid putting comments inside a function body: if the
|
163 |
|
|
function is so complex that you need to separately comment parts of it,
|
164 |
|
|
you should probably go back to chapter 4 for a while. You can make
|
165 |
|
|
small comments to note or warn about something particularly clever (or
|
166 |
|
|
ugly), but try to avoid excess. Instead, put the comments at the head
|
167 |
|
|
of the function, telling people what it does, and possibly WHY it does
|
168 |
|
|
it.
|
169 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
Chapter 6: You've made a mess of it
|
172 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
That's OK, we all do. You've probably been told by your long-time Unix
|
174 |
|
|
user helper that "GNU emacs" automatically formats the C sources for
|
175 |
|
|
you, and you've noticed that yes, it does do that, but the defaults it
|
176 |
|
|
uses are less than desirable (in fact, they are worse than random
|
177 |
|
|
typing - a infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never
|
178 |
|
|
make a good program).
|
179 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
So, you can either get rid of GNU emacs, or change it to use saner
|
181 |
|
|
values. To do the latter, you can stick the following in your .emacs file:
|
182 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
(defun linux-c-mode ()
|
184 |
|
|
"C mode with adjusted defaults for use with the Linux kernel."
|
185 |
|
|
(interactive)
|
186 |
|
|
(c-mode)
|
187 |
|
|
(setq c-indent-level 8)
|
188 |
|
|
(setq c-brace-imaginary-offset 0)
|
189 |
|
|
(setq c-brace-offset -8)
|
190 |
|
|
(setq c-argdecl-indent 8)
|
191 |
|
|
(setq c-label-offset -8)
|
192 |
|
|
(setq c-continued-statement-offset 8)
|
193 |
|
|
(setq indent-tabs-mode nil)
|
194 |
|
|
(setq tab-width 8))
|
195 |
|
|
|
196 |
|
|
This will define the M-x linux-c-mode command. When hacking on a
|
197 |
|
|
module, if you put the string -*- linux-c -*- somewhere on the first
|
198 |
|
|
two lines, this mode will be automatically invoked. Also, you may want
|
199 |
|
|
to add
|
200 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
(setq auto-mode-alist (cons '("/usr/src/linux.*/.*\\.[ch]$" . linux-c-mode)
|
202 |
|
|
auto-mode-alist))
|
203 |
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
to your .emacs file if you want to have linux-c-mode switched on
|
205 |
|
|
automagically when you edit source files under /usr/src/linux.
|
206 |
|
|
|
207 |
|
|
But even if you fail in getting emacs to do sane formatting, not
|
208 |
|
|
everything is lost: use "indent".
|
209 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
Now, again, GNU indent has the same brain dead settings that GNU emacs
|
211 |
|
|
has, which is why you need to give it a few command line options.
|
212 |
|
|
However, that's not too bad, because even the makers of GNU indent
|
213 |
|
|
recognize the authority of K&R (the GNU people aren't evil, they are
|
214 |
|
|
just severely misguided in this matter), so you just give indent the
|
215 |
|
|
options "-kr -i8" (stands for "K&R, 8 character indents").
|
216 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
"indent" has a lot of options, and especially when it comes to comment
|
218 |
|
|
re-formatting you may want to take a look at the manual page. But
|
219 |
|
|
remember: "indent" is not a fix for bad programming.
|