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 <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 13 ---------
2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
v4:
- Describe true/false as definitions [Joe]
- Use clearer language for the _Bool explanation [Bart]
- Delete the checkpatch tests [Joe]
diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index b78dd680c03809..db3e030d0df908 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 bool type is an alias for the C99 _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 definitions 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
diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index b737ca9d720441..d62abd032885a1 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -6368,19 +6368,6 @@ sub process {
}
}
-# check for bool bitfields
- if ($sline =~ /^.\s+bool\s*$Ident\s*:\s*\d+\s*;/) {
- WARN("BOOL_BITFIELD",
- "Avoid using bool as bitfield. Prefer bool bitfields as unsigned int or u<8|16|32>\n" . $herecurr);
- }
-
-# check for bool use in .h files
- if ($realfile =~ /\.h$/ &&
- $sline =~ /^.\s+bool\s*$Ident\s*(?::\s*d+\s*)?;/) {
- CHK("BOOL_MEMBER",
- "Avoid using bool structure members because of possible alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384\n" . $herecurr);
- }
-
# check for semaphores initialized locked
if ($line =~ /^.\s*sema_init.+,\W?0\W?\)/) {
WARN("CONSIDER_COMPLETION",
--
2.20.1
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48:13PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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.
Hey Jason,
I very much agree that the bool expectations could be much clearer, and this
patch is a nice step in that direction! Just a couple small nitpicks:
> +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.
+Do not use bool if cache line layout or size of the value matters, as its size
^
|
Adding an "as" makes the sentence flow a bit cleaner: --------------
> +into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often a more readable
> +alternative if the call-sites have naked true/false constants.
+into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often be a more readable
^
|
Missing a "be" here: -----------------------------------------
Ack from me after those two corrections.
Reviewed-by: Joey Pabalinas <[email protected]>
--
Cheers,
Joey Pabalinas
On 2019-01-11 00:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 13 ---------
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> v4:
> - Describe true/false as definitions [Joe]
> - Use clearer language for the _Bool explanation [Bart]
> - Delete the checkpatch tests [Joe]
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index b78dd680c03809..db3e030d0df908 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 bool type is an alias for the C99 _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 definitions should be
> used
> +instead of 0 and 1.
A very minor thing. I would suggest to keep consistent, in the
statement, the mapping
between definitions ("true and false [...]") and their correspondent
integer values
("[...] instead of 1 and 0").
In few words, I propose to change "0 and 1" into "1 and 0".
> +
> +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.
Of course, English is not my primary language, but it looks to me that
here a "be"
is missing: "[...] and 'flags' can often a more readable alternative
[...]".
> +
> +Otherwise limited use of bool in structures and arguments can improve
> +readability.
I'm going to update the Italian translations for this. Do you want me to
contribute
directly to this patch? Otherwise I will send a dedicated patch later
when this one
get accepted.
Thanks
> +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
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index b737ca9d720441..d62abd032885a1 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -6368,19 +6368,6 @@ sub process {
> }
> }
>
> -# check for bool bitfields
> - if ($sline =~ /^.\s+bool\s*$Ident\s*:\s*\d+\s*;/) {
> - WARN("BOOL_BITFIELD",
> - "Avoid using bool as bitfield. Prefer bool bitfields as
> unsigned int or u<8|16|32>\n" . $herecurr);
> - }
> -
> -# check for bool use in .h files
> - if ($realfile =~ /\.h$/ &&
> - $sline =~ /^.\s+bool\s*$Ident\s*(?::\s*d+\s*)?;/) {
> - CHK("BOOL_MEMBER",
> - "Avoid using bool structure members because of possible
> alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384\n" .
> $herecurr);
> - }
> -
> # check for semaphores initialized locked
> if ($line =~ /^.\s*sema_init.+,\W?0\W?\)/) {
> WARN("CONSIDER_COMPLETION",
--
Federico Vaga
http://www.federicovaga.it/
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48:13PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> +The Linux kernel bool type is an alias for the C99 _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 definitions 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.
It's awkward to start a sentence with a lower case letter. How about
rephrasing this paragraph and the following one as:
Using bool as the return type of a function or as a variable is always
fine when appropriate. It often improves readability and is a better option
than int for storing boolean values. Using bool in data structures is
more debatable; its size and alignment can vary between architectures.
> +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.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 07:29:40AM -1000, Joey Pabalinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48:13PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hey Jason,
>
> I very much agree that the bool expectations could be much clearer, and this
> patch is a nice step in that direction! Just a couple small nitpicks:
>
> > +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.
>
> +Do not use bool if cache line layout or size of the value matters, as its size
> ^
> |
> Adding an "as" makes the sentence flow a bit cleaner: --------------
>
> > +into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often a more readable
> > +alternative if the call-sites have naked true/false constants.
>
> +into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often be a more readable
> ^
> |
> Missing a "be" here: -----------------------------------------
>
> Ack from me after those two corrections.
>
> Reviewed-by: Joey Pabalinas <[email protected]>
done, thanks
Jason
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 08:49:36AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48:13PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > +The Linux kernel bool type is an alias for the C99 _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 definitions 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.
>
> It's awkward to start a sentence with a lower case letter. How about
> rephrasing this paragraph and the following one as:
>
> Using bool as the return type of a function or as a variable is always
> fine when appropriate. It often improves readability and is a better option
> than int for storing boolean values. Using bool in data structures is
> more debatable; its size and alignment can vary between architectures.
This is more concise, but I think if the coding style is not going to
give a concrete advise then it should at least provide some general
information so the reader can try and make an informed choice.
That is why I had it expand on some of the rationals a little bit,
along with a concrete direction to not use bool in the cases Linus
specifically called out.
> > +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.
JAson
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 05:01:39PM +0100, Federico Vaga wrote:
> > -17) Don't re-invent the kernel macros
> > +17) Using bool
> > +--------------
> > +
> > +The Linux kernel bool type is an alias for the C99 _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 definitions should be
> > used
> > +instead of 0 and 1.
>
> A very minor thing. I would suggest to keep consistent, in the
> statement, the mapping between definitions ("true and false [...]")
> and their correspondent integer values ("[...] instead of 1 and 0").
>
> In few words, I propose to change "0 and 1" into "1 and 0".
Hm, sure, seems harmless
> > +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.
>
> Of course, English is not my primary language, but it looks to me
> that here a "be" is missing: "[...] and 'flags' can often a more
> readable alternative [...]".
yes, sthanks
> > +Otherwise limited use of bool in structures and arguments can improve
> > +readability.
>
> I'm going to update the Italian translations for this. Do you want
> me to contribute directly to this patch? Otherwise I will send a
> dedicated patch later when this one get accepted.
I think you should send it as an update I guess? I don't really know
the process for translations
Jason