Re: [PATCH 21/21] Docs: add Functions parameters order section

Jeff Johnson
2025-10-27T16:08:54Z

On 10/27/2025 2:02 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2025, "Yury Norov (NVIDIA)" <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Standardize parameters ordering in some typical cases to minimize
>> confusion.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> index d1a8e5465ed9..dde24148305c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>> @@ -523,6 +523,54 @@ below, compared to the **declaration** example above)::
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> +6.2) Function parameters order
>> +------------------------------
>> +
>> +The order of parameters is important both for code generation and readability.
>> +Passing parameters in an unusual order is a common source of bugs. Listing
>> +them in standard widely adopted order helps to avoid confusion.
>> +
>> +Many ABIs put first function parameter and return value in R0. If your
>> +function returns one of its parameters, passing it at the very beginning
>> +would lead to a better code generation. For example::
>> +
>> + void *memset64(uint64_t *s, uint64_t v, size_t count);
>> + void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t count);
>> +
>> +If your function doesn't propagate a parameter, but has a meaning of copying
>> +and/or processing data, the best practice is following the traditional order:
>> +destination, source, options, flags.
>> +
>> +for_each()-like iterators should take an enumerator the first. For example::
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(bit, mask, nbits);
>> + do_something(bit);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member);
>> + do_something(pos);
>> +
>> +If function operates on a range or ranges of data, corresponding parameters
>> +may be described as ``start - end`` or ``start - size`` pairs. In both cases,
>> +the parameters should follow each other. For example::
>> +
>> + int
>> + check_range(unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend,
>> + unsigned long kstart, unsigned long kend);
>> +
>> + static inline void flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end);
>> +
>> + static inline void flush_icache_user_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> + struct page *page,
>> + unsigned long addr, int len);
>> +
>> +Both ``start`` and ``end`` of the interval are inclusive.
>> +
>> +Describing intervals in order ``end - start`` is unfavorable. One notable
>> +example is the ``GENMASK(high, low)`` macro. While such a notation is popular
>> +in hardware context, particularly to describe registers structure, in context
>> +of software development it looks counter intuitive and confusing. Please switch
>> +to an equivalent ``BITS(low, high)`` version.
>> +
>
> GENMASK when used for defining hardware registers is completely fine,
> and *much* easier to deal with when you cross check against the specs
> that almost invariably define high:low.

Not only that, there is no common definition of BITS

Defined in 7 files as a macro:
arch/arc/include/asm/disasm.h, line 32 (as a macro)
drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu-regs.h, line 15 (as a macro)
drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/fw/api/coex.h, line 14 (as a macro)
fs/select.c, line 415 (as a macro)
lib/zlib_inflate/inflate.c, line 232 (as a macro)
sound/core/oss/rate.c, line 28 (as a macro)
tools/perf/dlfilters/dlfilter-show-cycles.c, line 22 (as a macro)

Most of these do NOT have a (low, high) signature.

And GENMASK will throw a compile error if you swap the high and low:
#define GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK(h, l) BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(const_true((l) > (h)))

IMO the real confusion with GENMASK(), which would be the same with the
proposed BITS(), is that without knowledge of the implementation, when looking
at an instance of usage you can't tell if the parameters are two bit numbers
or a start bit and number of bits.

/jeff