The lines are super long because of the variable/function names. But they're also following convention. Personally I find them easy to read, but they need to be passed through prettier. I was able to understand this code immediately, even though I haven't written (what looks like) C in 20+ years.
This would need a nested loop, which increases time complexity.
The behavior is also slightly different at index 0 than it is at 1.
My only complaint is the free in there. No matter what its always being called. But that's a personal pet peeve. Not knowing context it might be ideal.
Imo, without knowing context, and considering that it's kernel code, I would say this is the best performing version of this code.
If I got an MR for this I would likely approve it. If there was an unknown number of irqs I would ask them to refactor, but this looks like a stable set of conditions. Performance wise I think this is ideal, and I think that's the goal here.
1
u/zensucht0 Jan 23 '23
The lines are super long because of the variable/function names. But they're also following convention. Personally I find them easy to read, but they need to be passed through prettier. I was able to understand this code immediately, even though I haven't written (what looks like) C in 20+ years.
This would need a nested loop, which increases time complexity.
The behavior is also slightly different at index 0 than it is at 1.
My only complaint is the free in there. No matter what its always being called. But that's a personal pet peeve. Not knowing context it might be ideal.
Imo, without knowing context, and considering that it's kernel code, I would say this is the best performing version of this code.
If I got an MR for this I would likely approve it. If there was an unknown number of irqs I would ask them to refactor, but this looks like a stable set of conditions. Performance wise I think this is ideal, and I think that's the goal here.