RE: [PATCH] infiniband: i40iw: replace atomic_add_return()

[Saleem, Shiraz]

> Subject: [PATCH] infiniband: i40iw: replace atomic_add_return()
> 
> atomic_inc_return() is a little neater
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yejune Deng <yejune.deng@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_cm.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_cm.c
> b/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_cm.c
> index 3053c345..26e92ae 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_cm.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/i40iw/i40iw_cm.c
> @@ -2426,7 +2426,7 @@ static void i40iw_handle_rst_pkt(struct i40iw_cm_node
> *cm_node,
>  		}
>  		break;
>  	case I40IW_CM_STATE_MPAREQ_RCVD:
> -		atomic_add_return(1, &cm_node->passive_state);
> +		atomic_inc_return(&cm_node->passive_state);

Just an atomic_inc would suffice here.

>  		break;
>  	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?