diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst | 184 |
1 files changed, 165 insertions, 19 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst index 05542840b16c..a2e326b42410 100644 --- a/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst +++ b/Documentation/rust/coding-guidelines.rst @@ -145,32 +145,32 @@ This is how a well-documented Rust function may look like: 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. +- 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. +- 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. +- 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``. + 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``. +- 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). +- 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. +- 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. + 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: @@ -227,3 +227,149 @@ The equivalent in Rust may look like (ignoring documentation): 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``. + + +Lints +----- + +In Rust, it is possible to ``allow`` particular warnings (diagnostics, lints) +locally, making the compiler ignore instances of a given warning within a given +function, module, block, etc. + +It is similar to ``#pragma GCC diagnostic push`` + ``ignored`` + ``pop`` in C +[#]_: + +.. code-block:: c + + #pragma GCC diagnostic push + #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-function" + static void f(void) {} + #pragma GCC diagnostic pop + +.. [#] In this particular case, the kernel's ``__{always,maybe}_unused`` + attributes (C23's ``[[maybe_unused]]``) may be used; however, the example + is meant to reflect the equivalent lint in Rust discussed afterwards. + +But way less verbose: + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[allow(dead_code)] + fn f() {} + +By that virtue, it makes it possible to comfortably enable more diagnostics by +default (i.e. outside ``W=`` levels). In particular, those that may have some +false positives but that are otherwise quite useful to keep enabled to catch +potential mistakes. + +On top of that, Rust provides the ``expect`` attribute which takes this further. +It makes the compiler warn if the warning was not produced. For instance, the +following will ensure that, when ``f()`` is called somewhere, we will have to +remove the attribute: + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[expect(dead_code)] + fn f() {} + +If we do not, we get a warning from the compiler:: + + warning: this lint expectation is unfulfilled + --> x.rs:3:10 + | + 3 | #[expect(dead_code)] + | ^^^^^^^^^ + | + = note: `#[warn(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` on by default + +This means that ``expect``\ s do not get forgotten when they are not needed, which +may happen in several situations, e.g.: + +- Temporary attributes added while developing. + +- Improvements in lints in the compiler, Clippy or custom tools which may + remove a false positive. + +- When the lint is not needed anymore because it was expected that it would be + removed at some point, such as the ``dead_code`` example above. + +It also increases the visibility of the remaining ``allow``\ s and reduces the +chance of misapplying one. + +Thus prefer ``expect`` over ``allow`` unless: + +- Conditional compilation triggers the warning in some cases but not others. + + If there are only a few cases where the warning triggers (or does not + trigger) compared to the total number of cases, then one may consider using + a conditional ``expect`` (i.e. ``cfg_attr(..., expect(...))``). Otherwise, + it is likely simpler to just use ``allow``. + +- Inside macros, when the different invocations may create expanded code that + triggers the warning in some cases but not in others. + +- When code may trigger a warning for some architectures but not others, such + as an ``as`` cast to a C FFI type. + +As a more developed example, consider for instance this program: + +.. code-block:: rust + + fn g() {} + + fn main() { + #[cfg(CONFIG_X)] + g(); + } + +Here, function ``g()`` is dead code if ``CONFIG_X`` is not set. Can we use +``expect`` here? + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[expect(dead_code)] + fn g() {} + + fn main() { + #[cfg(CONFIG_X)] + g(); + } + +This would emit a lint if ``CONFIG_X`` is set, since it is not dead code in that +configuration. Therefore, in cases like this, we cannot use ``expect`` as-is. + +A simple possibility is using ``allow``: + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[allow(dead_code)] + fn g() {} + + fn main() { + #[cfg(CONFIG_X)] + g(); + } + +An alternative would be using a conditional ``expect``: + +.. code-block:: rust + + #[cfg_attr(not(CONFIG_X), expect(dead_code))] + fn g() {} + + fn main() { + #[cfg(CONFIG_X)] + g(); + } + +This would ensure that, if someone introduces another call to ``g()`` somewhere +(e.g. unconditionally), then it would be spotted that it is not dead code +anymore. However, the ``cfg_attr`` is more complex than a simple ``allow``. + +Therefore, it is likely that it is not worth using conditional ``expect``\ s when +more than one or two configurations are involved or when the lint may be +triggered due to non-local changes (such as ``dead_code``). + +For more information about diagnostics in Rust, please see: + + https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/attributes/diagnostics.html |