Hacker News Reader

Actually, she/he moved the code for acknowledging radio packets into the ISR, relative to the the "by the book" solution of having minimal ISRs.

View on HN

Why didn’t they move the command processing into the ISR too then?

I assume the command processing was simply not a predictably small enough of a workload to fit into the time budget for an ISR. Besides, that is irrelevant for his point, he already gave an example of a "big" ISR, it doesn't have to be even bigger.

> not a predictably small enough workload

Which means ISRs can grow too big. And that’s the reason keeping ISRs as small as possible should be your goal.

I mean, I (and most people on this thread...) agree with you, I believe it is almost always "nicer" to be consistent and have minimal ISRs. But her/his point (as I interpret it, at least) was that in some situations a somewhat larger ISR may make sense.

That's not a good argument. That an extreme is bad doesn't make the opposite extreme good. I could easily have a house that is too large, but I wouldn't want to live in a box.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com