>> Avoid an extra function call by using a ternary operator instead of >> a conditional statement. > > Which is a good thing, because...? I suggest to reduce a bit of duplicate source code also at this place. >> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Oh, I see - that answers all questions. Obviously not so far. > "Software has detected an issue", so of course an issue it is. The mentioned development tool can help to point refactoring possibilities out. >> - if (irq < asic->irq_base + ASIC3_NUM_GPIOS) >> - irq_set_chip(irq, &asic3_gpio_irq_chip); >> - else >> - irq_set_chip(irq, &asic3_irq_chip); >> - >> + irq_set_chip(irq, >> + (irq < asic->irq_base + ASIC3_NUM_GPIOS) >> + ? &asic3_gpio_irq_chip >> + : &asic3_irq_chip); > > ... except that the result is not objectively better by any real criteria. We can have different opinions about the criteria which are relevant here. > It's not more readable, This is a possible view. > it conveys _less_ information to reader I guess that the interpretation of this feedback can become more interesting. > (the fact that calls differ only by the last argument > had been visually obvious already, Can the repeated code specification make the recognition of this implementation detail a bit harder actually? > had been visually obvious already, and logics used to be easier > to see), it (obviously) does not generate better (or different) code. The functionality should be equivalent for the shown software refactoring. > What the hell is the point? I dare to point another change possibility out. I am unsure if this adjustment will be picked up finally. Regards, Markus
