Initially when mt_lists were added, their purpose was to be used with
the scheduler, where anyone may concurrently add the same tasklet, so
it sounded natural to implement a check in MT_LIST_ADD{,Q}. Later their
usage was extended and MT_LIST_ADD{,Q} started to be used on situations
where the element to be added was exclusively owned by the one performing
the operation so a conflict was impossible. This became more obvious with
the idle connections and the new macro was called MT_LIST_ADDQ_NOCHECK.
But this remains confusing and at many places it's not expected that
an MT_LIST_ADD could possibly fail, and worse, at some places we start
by initializing it before adding (and the test is superflous) so let's
rename them to something more conventional to denote the presence of the
check or not:
MT_LIST_ADD{,Q} : inconditional operation, the caller owns the
element, and doesn't care about the element's
current state (exactly like LIST_ADD)
MT_LIST_TRY_ADD{,Q}: only perform the operation if the element is not
already added or in the process of being added.
This means that the previously "safe" MT_LIST_ADD{,Q} are not "safe"
anymore. This also means that in case of backport mistakes in the
future causing this to be overlooked, the slower and safer functions
will still be used by default.
Note that the missing unchecked MT_LIST_ADD macro was added.
The rest of the code will have to be reviewed so that a number of
callers of MT_LIST_TRY_ADDQ are changed to MT_LIST_ADDQ to remove
the unneeded test.
de4db17dee