On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:11 PM Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> My apologies ;-/ Correct diff follows:
This is similar to what we do for the regular list_add(), so I have no
objections to the micro-optimization.
Of course, for list_add() we do it by using a helper function and
passing those prev/next pointers to it instead, so it _looks_ very
different. But the logic is the same: do the loads of next/prev early
and once, so that gcc doesn't think they might alias with the updates.
However, I *really* don't like this syntax:
struct hlist_node *p = n->next = prev->next;
What, what? That's illegible. Both for the double assignment within a
declaration, but also for the naming.
Yeah, I assume you mean 'p' just for pointer. Fine. But when we are
explicitly playing with multiple pointers, just give them a name.
In this case, 'next'.
So just do
hlist_add_behind:
struct hlist_node *next = prev->next;
n->next = next;
prev->next = n;
n->pprev = &prev->next;
if (next)
next->pprev = &n->next;
And honestly, I'd rename 'n' with 'new' too while at it. We're not
using C++, so we can use sane names (and already do in other places).
That way each statement makes sense on its own, rather than being a
mess of "what does 'p' and 'n' mean?"
Linus
