On Wed, 6 May 2026 17:30:32 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 5/6/26 2:06 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > The shaper insertion code is written in a way that suggests that > > perhaps it was expecting readers to be fenced off by xa_lock. > > FTR, the code was shaped (pun intended :) that way to avoid acquiring > multiple times the xa_lock when not needed. Sort of evil early optimization.
Ah, that makes more sense, I guess. Do you prefer me to drop this patch? The XA lock is guaranteed not to be contended since we're under the netdev mutex..
