diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst | 413 |
1 files changed, 413 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst b/Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..9d5cef996f7f --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/4.Coding.rst @@ -0,0 +1,413 @@ +.. _development_coding: + +Getting the code right +====================== + +While there is much to be said for a solid and community-oriented design +process, the proof of any kernel development project is in the resulting +code. It is the code which will be examined by other developers and merged +(or not) into the mainline tree. So it is the quality of this code which +will determine the ultimate success of the project. + +This section will examine the coding process. We'll start with a look at a +number of ways in which kernel developers can go wrong. Then the focus +will shift toward doing things right and the tools which can help in that +quest. + + +Pitfalls +--------- + +Coding style +************ + +The kernel has long had a standard coding style, described in +Documentation/CodingStyle. For much of that time, the policies described +in that file were taken as being, at most, advisory. As a result, there is +a substantial amount of code in the kernel which does not meet the coding +style guidelines. The presence of that code leads to two independent +hazards for kernel developers. + +The first of these is to believe that the kernel coding standards do not +matter and are not enforced. The truth of the matter is that adding new +code to the kernel is very difficult if that code is not coded according to +the standard; many developers will request that the code be reformatted +before they will even review it. A code base as large as the kernel +requires some uniformity of code to make it possible for developers to +quickly understand any part of it. So there is no longer room for +strangely-formatted code. + +Occasionally, the kernel's coding style will run into conflict with an +employer's mandated style. In such cases, the kernel's style will have to +win before the code can be merged. Putting code into the kernel means +giving up a degree of control in a number of ways - including control over +how the code is formatted. + +The other trap is to assume that code which is already in the kernel is +urgently in need of coding style fixes. Developers may start to generate +reformatting patches as a way of gaining familiarity with the process, or +as a way of getting their name into the kernel changelogs - or both. But +pure coding style fixes are seen as noise by the development community; +they tend to get a chilly reception. So this type of patch is best +avoided. It is natural to fix the style of a piece of code while working +on it for other reasons, but coding style changes should not be made for +their own sake. + +The coding style document also should not be read as an absolute law which +can never be transgressed. If there is a good reason to go against the +style (a line which becomes far less readable if split to fit within the +80-column limit, for example), just do it. + + +Abstraction layers +****************** + +Computer Science professors teach students to make extensive use of +abstraction layers in the name of flexibility and information hiding. +Certainly the kernel makes extensive use of abstraction; no project +involving several million lines of code could do otherwise and survive. +But experience has shown that excessive or premature abstraction can be +just as harmful as premature optimization. Abstraction should be used to +the level required and no further. + +At a simple level, consider a function which has an argument which is +always passed as zero by all callers. One could retain that argument just +in case somebody eventually needs to use the extra flexibility that it +provides. By that time, though, chances are good that the code which +implements this extra argument has been broken in some subtle way which was +never noticed - because it has never been used. Or, when the need for +extra flexibility arises, it does not do so in a way which matches the +programmer's early expectation. Kernel developers will routinely submit +patches to remove unused arguments; they should, in general, not be added +in the first place. + +Abstraction layers which hide access to hardware - often to allow the bulk +of a driver to be used with multiple operating systems - are especially +frowned upon. Such layers obscure the code and may impose a performance +penalty; they do not belong in the Linux kernel. + +On the other hand, if you find yourself copying significant amounts of code +from another kernel subsystem, it is time to ask whether it would, in fact, +make sense to pull out some of that code into a separate library or to +implement that functionality at a higher level. There is no value in +replicating the same code throughout the kernel. + + +#ifdef and preprocessor use in general +************************************** + +The C preprocessor seems to present a powerful temptation to some C +programmers, who see it as a way to efficiently encode a great deal of +flexibility into a source file. But the preprocessor is not C, and heavy +use of it results in code which is much harder for others to read and +harder for the compiler to check for correctness. Heavy preprocessor use +is almost always a sign of code which needs some cleanup work. + +Conditional compilation with #ifdef is, indeed, a powerful feature, and it +is used within the kernel. But there is little desire to see code which is +sprinkled liberally with #ifdef blocks. As a general rule, #ifdef use +should be confined to header files whenever possible. +Conditionally-compiled code can be confined to functions which, if the code +is not to be present, simply become empty. The compiler will then quietly +optimize out the call to the empty function. The result is far cleaner +code which is easier to follow. + +C preprocessor macros present a number of hazards, including possible +multiple evaluation of expressions with side effects and no type safety. +If you are tempted to define a macro, consider creating an inline function +instead. The code which results will be the same, but inline functions are +easier to read, do not evaluate their arguments multiple times, and allow +the compiler to perform type checking on the arguments and return value. + + +Inline functions +**************** + +Inline functions present a hazard of their own, though. Programmers can +become enamored of the perceived efficiency inherent in avoiding a function +call and fill a source file with inline functions. Those functions, +however, can actually reduce performance. Since their code is replicated +at each call site, they end up bloating the size of the compiled kernel. +That, in turn, creates pressure on the processor's memory caches, which can +slow execution dramatically. Inline functions, as a rule, should be quite +small and relatively rare. The cost of a function call, after all, is not +that high; the creation of large numbers of inline functions is a classic +example of premature optimization. + +In general, kernel programmers ignore cache effects at their peril. The +classic time/space tradeoff taught in beginning data structures classes +often does not apply to contemporary hardware. Space *is* time, in that a +larger program will run slower than one which is more compact. + +More recent compilers take an increasingly active role in deciding whether +a given function should actually be inlined or not. So the liberal +placement of "inline" keywords may not just be excessive; it could also be +irrelevant. + + +Locking +******* + +In May, 2006, the "Devicescape" networking stack was, with great +fanfare, released under the GPL and made available for inclusion in the +mainline kernel. This donation was welcome news; support for wireless +networking in Linux was considered substandard at best, and the Devicescape +stack offered the promise of fixing that situation. Yet, this code did not +actually make it into the mainline until June, 2007 (2.6.22). What +happened? + +This code showed a number of signs of having been developed behind +corporate doors. But one large problem in particular was that it was not +designed to work on multiprocessor systems. Before this networking stack +(now called mac80211) could be merged, a locking scheme needed to be +retrofitted onto it. + +Once upon a time, Linux kernel code could be developed without thinking +about the concurrency issues presented by multiprocessor systems. Now, +however, this document is being written on a dual-core laptop. Even on +single-processor systems, work being done to improve responsiveness will +raise the level of concurrency within the kernel. The days when kernel +code could be written without thinking about locking are long past. + +Any resource (data structures, hardware registers, etc.) which could be +accessed concurrently by more than one thread must be protected by a lock. +New code should be written with this requirement in mind; retrofitting +locking after the fact is a rather more difficult task. Kernel developers +should take the time to understand the available locking primitives well +enough to pick the right tool for the job. Code which shows a lack of +attention to concurrency will have a difficult path into the mainline. + + +Regressions +*********** + +One final hazard worth mentioning is this: it can be tempting to make a +change (which may bring big improvements) which causes something to break +for existing users. This kind of change is called a "regression," and +regressions have become most unwelcome in the mainline kernel. With few +exceptions, changes which cause regressions will be backed out if the +regression cannot be fixed in a timely manner. Far better to avoid the +regression in the first place. + +It is often argued that a regression can be justified if it causes things +to work for more people than it creates problems for. Why not make a +change if it brings new functionality to ten systems for each one it +breaks? The best answer to this question was expressed by Linus in July, +2007: + +:: + + So we don't fix bugs by introducing new problems. That way lies + madness, and nobody ever knows if you actually make any real + progress at all. Is it two steps forwards, one step back, or one + step forward and two steps back? + +(http://lwn.net/Articles/243460/). + +An especially unwelcome type of regression is any sort of change to the +user-space ABI. Once an interface has been exported to user space, it must +be supported indefinitely. This fact makes the creation of user-space +interfaces particularly challenging: since they cannot be changed in +incompatible ways, they must be done right the first time. For this +reason, a great deal of thought, clear documentation, and wide review for +user-space interfaces is always required. + + +Code checking tools +------------------- + +For now, at least, the writing of error-free code remains an ideal that few +of us can reach. What we can hope to do, though, is to catch and fix as +many of those errors as possible before our code goes into the mainline +kernel. To that end, the kernel developers have put together an impressive +array of tools which can catch a wide variety of obscure problems in an +automated way. Any problem caught by the computer is a problem which will +not afflict a user later on, so it stands to reason that the automated +tools should be used whenever possible. + +The first step is simply to heed the warnings produced by the compiler. +Contemporary versions of gcc can detect (and warn about) a large number of +potential errors. Quite often, these warnings point to real problems. +Code submitted for review should, as a rule, not produce any compiler +warnings. When silencing warnings, take care to understand the real cause +and try to avoid "fixes" which make the warning go away without addressing +its cause. + +Note that not all compiler warnings are enabled by default. Build the +kernel with "make EXTRA_CFLAGS=-W" to get the full set. + +The kernel provides several configuration options which turn on debugging +features; most of these are found in the "kernel hacking" submenu. Several +of these options should be turned on for any kernel used for development or +testing purposes. In particular, you should turn on: + + - ENABLE_WARN_DEPRECATED, ENABLE_MUST_CHECK, and FRAME_WARN to get an + extra set of warnings for problems like the use of deprecated interfaces + or ignoring an important return value from a function. The output + generated by these warnings can be verbose, but one need not worry about + warnings from other parts of the kernel. + + - DEBUG_OBJECTS will add code to track the lifetime of various objects + created by the kernel and warn when things are done out of order. If + you are adding a subsystem which creates (and exports) complex objects + of its own, consider adding support for the object debugging + infrastructure. + + - DEBUG_SLAB can find a variety of memory allocation and use errors; it + should be used on most development kernels. + + - DEBUG_SPINLOCK, DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, and DEBUG_MUTEXES will find a + number of common locking errors. + +There are quite a few other debugging options, some of which will be +discussed below. Some of them have a significant performance impact and +should not be used all of the time. But some time spent learning the +available options will likely be paid back many times over in short order. + +One of the heavier debugging tools is the locking checker, or "lockdep." +This tool will track the acquisition and release of every lock (spinlock or +mutex) in the system, the order in which locks are acquired relative to +each other, the current interrupt environment, and more. It can then +ensure that locks are always acquired in the same order, that the same +interrupt assumptions apply in all situations, and so on. In other words, +lockdep can find a number of scenarios in which the system could, on rare +occasion, deadlock. This kind of problem can be painful (for both +developers and users) in a deployed system; lockdep allows them to be found +in an automated manner ahead of time. Code with any sort of non-trivial +locking should be run with lockdep enabled before being submitted for +inclusion. + +As a diligent kernel programmer, you will, beyond doubt, check the return +status of any operation (such as a memory allocation) which can fail. The +fact of the matter, though, is that the resulting failure recovery paths +are, probably, completely untested. Untested code tends to be broken code; +you could be much more confident of your code if all those error-handling +paths had been exercised a few times. + +The kernel provides a fault injection framework which can do exactly that, +especially where memory allocations are involved. With fault injection +enabled, a configurable percentage of memory allocations will be made to +fail; these failures can be restricted to a specific range of code. +Running with fault injection enabled allows the programmer to see how the +code responds when things go badly. See +Documentation/fault-injection/fault-injection.txt for more information on +how to use this facility. + +Other kinds of errors can be found with the "sparse" static analysis tool. +With sparse, the programmer can be warned about confusion between +user-space and kernel-space addresses, mixture of big-endian and +small-endian quantities, the passing of integer values where a set of bit +flags is expected, and so on. Sparse must be installed separately (it can +be found at https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page if your +distributor does not package it); it can then be run on the code by adding +"C=1" to your make command. + +The "Coccinelle" tool (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) is able to find a wide +variety of potential coding problems; it can also propose fixes for those +problems. Quite a few "semantic patches" for the kernel have been packaged +under the scripts/coccinelle directory; running "make coccicheck" will run +through those semantic patches and report on any problems found. See +Documentation/coccinelle.txt for more information. + +Other kinds of portability errors are best found by compiling your code for +other architectures. If you do not happen to have an S/390 system or a +Blackfin development board handy, you can still perform the compilation +step. A large set of cross compilers for x86 systems can be found at + + http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ + +Some time spent installing and using these compilers will help avoid +embarrassment later. + + +Documentation +------------- + +Documentation has often been more the exception than the rule with kernel +development. Even so, adequate documentation will help to ease the merging +of new code into the kernel, make life easier for other developers, and +will be helpful for your users. In many cases, the addition of +documentation has become essentially mandatory. + +The first piece of documentation for any patch is its associated +changelog. Log entries should describe the problem being solved, the form +of the solution, the people who worked on the patch, any relevant +effects on performance, and anything else that might be needed to +understand the patch. Be sure that the changelog says *why* the patch is +worth applying; a surprising number of developers fail to provide that +information. + +Any code which adds a new user-space interface - including new sysfs or +/proc files - should include documentation of that interface which enables +user-space developers to know what they are working with. See +Documentation/ABI/README for a description of how this documentation should +be formatted and what information needs to be provided. + +The file Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt describes all of the kernel's +boot-time parameters. Any patch which adds new parameters should add the +appropriate entries to this file. + +Any new configuration options must be accompanied by help text which +clearly explains the options and when the user might want to select them. + +Internal API information for many subsystems is documented by way of +specially-formatted comments; these comments can be extracted and formatted +in a number of ways by the "kernel-doc" script. If you are working within +a subsystem which has kerneldoc comments, you should maintain them and add +them, as appropriate, for externally-available functions. Even in areas +which have not been so documented, there is no harm in adding kerneldoc +comments for the future; indeed, this can be a useful activity for +beginning kernel developers. The format of these comments, along with some +information on how to create kerneldoc templates can be found in the file +Documentation/kernel-documentation.rst. + +Anybody who reads through a significant amount of existing kernel code will +note that, often, comments are most notable by their absence. Once again, +the expectations for new code are higher than they were in the past; +merging uncommented code will be harder. That said, there is little desire +for verbosely-commented code. The code should, itself, be readable, with +comments explaining the more subtle aspects. + +Certain things should always be commented. Uses of memory barriers should +be accompanied by a line explaining why the barrier is necessary. The +locking rules for data structures generally need to be explained somewhere. +Major data structures need comprehensive documentation in general. +Non-obvious dependencies between separate bits of code should be pointed +out. Anything which might tempt a code janitor to make an incorrect +"cleanup" needs a comment saying why it is done the way it is. And so on. + + +Internal API changes +-------------------- + +The binary interface provided by the kernel to user space cannot be broken +except under the most severe circumstances. The kernel's internal +programming interfaces, instead, are highly fluid and can be changed when +the need arises. If you find yourself having to work around a kernel API, +or simply not using a specific functionality because it does not meet your +needs, that may be a sign that the API needs to change. As a kernel +developer, you are empowered to make such changes. + +There are, of course, some catches. API changes can be made, but they need +to be well justified. So any patch making an internal API change should be +accompanied by a description of what the change is and why it is +necessary. This kind of change should also be broken out into a separate +patch, rather than buried within a larger patch. + +The other catch is that a developer who changes an internal API is +generally charged with the task of fixing any code within the kernel tree +which is broken by the change. For a widely-used function, this duty can +lead to literally hundreds or thousands of changes - many of which are +likely to conflict with work being done by other developers. Needless to +say, this can be a large job, so it is best to be sure that the +justification is solid. Note that the Coccinelle tool can help with +wide-ranging API changes. + +When making an incompatible API change, one should, whenever possible, +ensure that code which has not been updated is caught by the compiler. +This will help you to be sure that you have found all in-tree uses of that +interface. It will also alert developers of out-of-tree code that there is +a change that they need to respond to. Supporting out-of-tree code is not +something that kernel developers need to be worried about, but we also do +not have to make life harder for out-of-tree developers than it needs to +be. |