diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst | 216 |
1 files changed, 216 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..aa8ed082613e --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +Coding Guidelines +================= + +This document describes how to write Rust code in the kernel. + + +Style & formatting +------------------ + +The code should be formatted using ``rustfmt``. In this way, a person +contributing from time to time to the kernel does not need to learn and +remember one more style guide. More importantly, reviewers and maintainers +do not need to spend time pointing out style issues anymore, and thus +less patch roundtrips may be needed to land a change. + +.. note:: Conventions on comments and documentation are not checked by + ``rustfmt``. Thus those are still needed to be taken care of. + +The default settings of ``rustfmt`` are used. This means the idiomatic Rust +style is followed. For instance, 4 spaces are used for indentation rather +than tabs. + +It is convenient to instruct editors/IDEs to format while typing, +when saving or at commit time. However, if for some reason reformatting +the entire kernel Rust sources is needed at some point, the following can be +run:: + + make LLVM=1 rustfmt + +It is also possible to check if everything is formatted (printing a diff +otherwise), for instance for a CI, with:: + + make LLVM=1 rustfmtcheck + +Like ``clang-format`` for the rest of the kernel, ``rustfmt`` works on +individual files, and does not require a kernel configuration. Sometimes it may +even work with broken code. + + +Comments +-------- + +"Normal" comments (i.e. ``//``, rather than code documentation which starts +with ``///`` or ``//!``) are written in Markdown the same way as documentation +comments are, even though they will not be rendered. This improves consistency, +simplifies the rules and allows to move content between the two kinds of +comments more easily. For instance: + +.. code-block:: rust + + // `object` is ready to be handled now. + f(object); + +Furthermore, just like documentation, comments are capitalized at the beginning +of a sentence and ended with a period (even if it is a single sentence). This +includes ``// SAFETY:``, ``// TODO:`` and other "tagged" comments, e.g.: + +.. code-block:: rust + + // FIXME: The error should be handled properly. + +Comments should not be used for documentation purposes: comments are intended +for implementation details, not users. This distinction is useful even if the +reader of the source file is both an implementor and a user of an API. In fact, +sometimes it is useful to use both comments and documentation at the same time. +For instance, for a ``TODO`` list or to comment on the documentation itself. +For the latter case, comments can be inserted in the middle; that is, closer to +the line of documentation to be commented. For any other case, comments are +written after the documentation, e.g.: + +.. code-block:: rust + + /// Returns a new [`Foo`]. + /// + /// # Examples + /// + // TODO: Find a better example. + /// ``` + /// let foo = f(42); + /// ``` + // FIXME: Use fallible approach. + pub fn f(x: i32) -> Foo { + // ... + } + +One special kind of comments are the ``// SAFETY:`` comments. These must appear +before every ``unsafe`` block, and they explain why the code inside the block is +correct/sound, i.e. why it cannot trigger undefined behavior in any case, e.g.: + +.. code-block:: rust + + // SAFETY: `p` is valid by the safety requirements. + unsafe { *p = 0; } + +``// SAFETY:`` comments are not to be confused with the ``# Safety`` sections +in code documentation. ``# Safety`` sections specify the contract that callers +(for functions) or implementors (for traits) need to abide by. ``// SAFETY:`` +comments show why a call (for functions) or implementation (for traits) actually +respects the preconditions stated in a ``# Safety`` section or the language +reference. + + +Code documentation +------------------ + +Rust kernel code is not documented like C kernel code (i.e. via kernel-doc). +Instead, the usual system for documenting Rust code is used: the ``rustdoc`` +tool, which uses Markdown (a lightweight markup language). + +To learn Markdown, there are many guides available out there. For instance, +the one at: + + https://commonmark.org/help/ + +This is how a well-documented Rust function may look like: + +.. code-block:: rust + + /// Returns the contained [`Some`] value, consuming the `self` value, + /// without checking that the value is not [`None`]. + /// + /// # Safety + /// + /// Calling this method on [`None`] is *[undefined behavior]*. + /// + /// [undefined behavior]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html + /// + /// # Examples + /// + /// ``` + /// let x = Some("air"); + /// assert_eq!(unsafe { x.unwrap_unchecked() }, "air"); + /// ``` + pub unsafe fn unwrap_unchecked(self) -> T { + match self { + Some(val) => val, + + // SAFETY: The safety contract must be upheld by the caller. + None => unsafe { hint::unreachable_unchecked() }, + } + } + +This example showcases a few ``rustdoc`` features and some conventions followed +in the kernel: + + - The first paragraph must be a single sentence briefly describing what + the documented item does. Further explanations must go in extra paragraphs. + + - Unsafe functions must document their safety preconditions under + a ``# Safety`` section. + + - While not shown here, if a function may panic, the conditions under which + that happens must be described under a ``# Panics`` section. + + Please note that panicking should be very rare and used only with a good + reason. In almost all cases, a fallible approach should be used, typically + returning a ``Result``. + + - If providing examples of usage would help readers, they must be written in + a section called ``# Examples``. + + - Rust items (functions, types, constants...) must be linked appropriately + (``rustdoc`` will create a link automatically). + + - Any ``unsafe`` block must be preceded by a ``// SAFETY:`` comment + describing why the code inside is sound. + + While sometimes the reason might look trivial and therefore unneeded, + writing these comments is not just a good way of documenting what has been + taken into account, but most importantly, it provides a way to know that + there are no *extra* implicit constraints. + +To learn more about how to write documentation for Rust and extra features, +please take a look at the ``rustdoc`` book at: + + https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc/how-to-write-documentation.html + + +Naming +------ + +Rust kernel code follows the usual Rust naming conventions: + + https://rust-lang.github.io/api-guidelines/naming.html + +When existing C concepts (e.g. macros, functions, objects...) are wrapped into +a Rust abstraction, a name as close as reasonably possible to the C side should +be used in order to avoid confusion and to improve readability when switching +back and forth between the C and Rust sides. For instance, macros such as +``pr_info`` from C are named the same in the Rust side. + +Having said that, casing should be adjusted to follow the Rust naming +conventions, and namespacing introduced by modules and types should not be +repeated in the item names. For instance, when wrapping constants like: + +.. code-block:: c + + #define GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN 0 + #define GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_OUT 1 + +The equivalent in Rust may look like (ignoring documentation): + +.. code-block:: rust + + pub mod gpio { + pub enum LineDirection { + In = bindings::GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN as _, + Out = bindings::GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_OUT as _, + } + } + +That is, the equivalent of ``GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN`` would be referred to as +``gpio::LineDirection::In``. In particular, it should not be named +``gpio::gpio_line_direction::GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN``. |