From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 832B0C43387 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B642089F for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ziepe.ca header.i=@ziepe.ca header.b="kLaTCgfg" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727134AbfAGVLU (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 16:11:20 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:33763 "EHLO mail-pf1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726535AbfAGVLU (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 16:11:20 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id c123so783713pfb.0 for ; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 13:11:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ziepe.ca; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-disposition :user-agent; bh=g1cuTEn48wG1qTeVSnSEcCQJkrtfUkiQk/2rY6jqY4g=; b=kLaTCgfgNWKWzI2Ua887rfwu12qxeNMMKjJe5PFKD6fAFhsew7jd84eA0fxIGkySOI 9BMTor2n8sBiaoo4Dlk9CeuMGa3TwYhJ25WgJvT28Zbj0vY7S8vEQ9Zs4pGKuwiaNqLo Su8FaeXyNc2ejjrpoU7vf6uoJ5rxVR4mNrOADOTqZZqhFmfCAmCOGeoxAybJXLAeyzwW ocxaLEL2SklbWPUWocLV1DkG82K4SH8FHlaWX/JT1678kLAWHb52ALqaDh592GLPSIk6 jUk7NsAWpSxd6Qb/49r01kLnNzDo6OEmQRee+aW5dPwPtQOhVbop+BPqnbXb8N2DJogP tACA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version :content-disposition:user-agent; bh=g1cuTEn48wG1qTeVSnSEcCQJkrtfUkiQk/2rY6jqY4g=; b=RfikflrEo5Ong7lsTfGxu8kiqPxwL2RgolGCJ5PRi+Fv5RtQqZ3Ji816veoJ22nlgU S4P8WOwpFqJtXOc6VDBjHTmg/rtoctVWnku40Dzondgs92/BCuUpaoprAwcls+X10JJO OB23r45eo93D009EGw9edTGvGTW+/Qn8HRS2EKqM4kRFf3yg7vQ5Ap2n8dPohiEUO+Vh i+aQ/Hmmz2ztL450s+tbfLng1SjLR2XFafD4649b1BpToTN5zt5OQsz6GLXZUDFU1l8M CQv+675xaGmDpJLz+juvpEe6bthIgsDQUCmCNHuewW2gGRUjCvdoq75sySBxi+1kdI5t v4fw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcIOLFHuxalFZsRQlfQsX4H+NkwYPk4ZvPEaIZwDV1QPKxXHWzy cDYUgqFo0SwiS4KMjNe+ISnghA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4jF9adta4mUeLs+sQ6ZBaiiJgt2be+BSMlmtucMMzo3SwB9D0y5/eMn4ERcaP5C9w1sHKXtA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:4e41:: with SMTP id o1mr12513869pgl.282.1546895479183; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 13:11:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ziepe.ca (S010614cc2056d97f.ed.shawcable.net. [174.3.196.123]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x26sm100360160pfn.50.2019.01.07.13.11.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 07 Jan 2019 13:11:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from jgg by mlx.ziepe.ca with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ggcB3-0006IT-7g; Mon, 07 Jan 2019 14:11:17 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:11:17 -0700 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Gal Pressman Cc: Joe Perches , Bart Van Assche , Stephen Warren , Tariq Toukan , xavier.huwei@huawei.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Doug Ledford , Stephen Warren , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH v3] coding-style: Clarify the expectations around bool Message-ID: <20190107211117.GA24142@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org There has been some confusion since checkpatch started warning about bool use in structures, and people have been avoiding using it. Many people feel there is still a legitimate place for bool in structures, so provide some guidance on bool usage derived from the entire thread that spawned the checkpatch warning. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFwVZk1OfB9T2v014PTAKFhtVan_Zj2dOjnCy3x6E4UJfA@mail.gmail.com Signed-off-by: Joe Perches Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe --- Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) There hasn't been any negative feedback on the first thread that spawned this discussion, so here is a cleanuped up patch, ready to be applied. Acks? v2: - Revise Joe's original suggestion with background and more details v3: - s/C11/C99/ [Al Viro] - Add some remarks on the use of bool in function arguments [GalP] I'm not sure what tree this should go through - Jonathan would you pick it up? Thanks, Jason diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst index b78dd680c03809..cbe6b01b05fa66 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst @@ -921,7 +921,37 @@ result. Typical examples would be functions that return pointers; they use NULL or the ERR_PTR mechanism to report failure. -17) Don't re-invent the kernel macros +17) Using bool +-------------- + +The Linux kernel uses the C99 standard for the bool type. bool values can only +evaluate to 0 or 1, and implicit or explicit conversion to bool automatically +converts the value to true or false. When using bool types the !! construction +is not needed, which eliminates a class of bugs. + +When working with bool values the true and false labels should be used instead +of 0 and 1. + +bool function return types and stack variables are always fine to use whenever +appropriate. Use of bool is encouraged to improve readability and is often a +better option than 'int' for storing boolean values. + +Do not use bool if cache line layout or size of the value matters, its size +and alignment varies based on the compiled architecture. Structures that are +optimized for alignment and size should not use bool. + +If a structure has many true/false values, consider consolidating them into a +bitfield with 1 bit members, or using an appropriate fixed width type, such as +u8. + +Similarly for function arguments, many true/false values can be consolidated +into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often a more readable +alternative if the call-sites have naked true/false constants. + +Otherwise limited use of bool in structures and arguments can improve +readability. + +18) Don't re-invent the kernel macros ------------------------------------- The header file include/linux/kernel.h contains a number of macros that @@ -944,7 +974,7 @@ need them. Feel free to peruse that header file to see what else is already defined that you shouldn't reproduce in your code. -18) Editor modelines and other cruft +19) Editor modelines and other cruft ------------------------------------ Some editors can interpret configuration information embedded in source files, @@ -978,7 +1008,7 @@ own custom mode, or may have some other magic method for making indentation work correctly. -19) Inline assembly +20) Inline assembly ------------------- In architecture-specific code, you may need to use inline assembly to interface @@ -1010,7 +1040,7 @@ the next instruction in the assembly output: : /* outputs */ : /* inputs */ : /* clobbers */); -20) Conditional Compilation +21) Conditional Compilation --------------------------- Wherever possible, don't use preprocessor conditionals (#if, #ifdef) in .c -- 2.20.1