On Wed, 2007-21-03 at 11:10 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:

Its harmless since its a read lock, which can be nested. I actually
don't see any need for qdisc_tree_lock at all, all changes and all
walking is done under the RTNL, which is why I've removed it in
my (upcoming) patches. I suggest to leave it as is for now so I
don't need to change the __qdisc_lookup back to qdisc_lookup in
2.6.22.

Sounds good to me.

cheers,
jamal