Document what was discussed multiple times on list and various virtual / in-person conversations. guard() being okay in functions <= 20 LoC is my own invention. If the function is trivial it should be fine, but feel free to disagree :) Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> --- CC: andrew@xxxxxxx CC: corbet@xxxxxxx CC: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst index fe8616397d63..ccd6c96a169b 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst @@ -392,6 +392,22 @@ When working in existing code which uses nonstandard formatting make your code follow the most recent guidelines, so that eventually all code in the domain of netdev is in the preferred format. +Using device-managed and cleanup.h constructs +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Netdev remains skeptical about promises of all "auto-cleanup" APIs, +including even ``devm_`` helpers, historically. They are not the preferred +style of implementation, merely an acceptable one. + +Use of ``guard()`` is discouraged within any function longer than 20 lines, +``scoped_guard()`` is considered more readable. Using normal lock/unlock is +still (weakly) preferred. + +Low level cleanup constructs (such as ``__free()``) can be used when building +APIs and helpers, especially scoped interators. However, direct use of +``__free()`` within networking core and drivers is discouraged. +Similar guidance applies to declaring variables mid-function. + Resending after review ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- 2.46.0
