Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:14:41 -0400 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] infiniband: i40iw: replace atomic_add_return() |
| |
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
| |