Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:14:41 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     "Saleem, Shiraz" <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>
Cc:     Yejune Deng <yejune.deng@gmail.com>,
        "Latif, Faisal" <faisal.latif@intel.com>,
        "dledford@redhat.com" <dledford@redhat.com>,
        "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: i40iw: replace atomic_add_return()
Message-ID: <20201201161441.GG5487@ziepe.ca>
References: <1606726376-7675-1-git-send-email-yejune.deng@gmail.com>
 <b578b692d2ec4f598be584b809aed400@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b578b692d2ec4f598be584b809aed400@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 02:42:25PM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote:

> >  	case I40IW_CM_STATE_ESTABLISHED:
> >  	case I40IW_CM_STATE_SYN_RCVD:
> > @@ -3020,7 +3020,7 @@ static int i40iw_cm_reject(struct i40iw_cm_node
> > *cm_node, const void *pdata, u8
> >  	i40iw_cleanup_retrans_entry(cm_node);
> > 
> >  	if (!loopback) {
> > -		passive_state = atomic_add_return(1, &cm_node->passive_state);
> > +		passive_state = atomic_inc_return(&cm_node->passive_state);
> 
> Fine with it as its consistent across i40iw. But aren't there many
> more instances of this across the tree?  Isn't this a choice best
> left to the developer?

I don't think it is a style choice, the narrowest applicable atomic
should always be used as a matter of clarity and performance.

Jason