[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd6426c0-f439-4b15-9ab4-12768aa8557a@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 11:51:36 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Cc: will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, j.alglave@....ac.uk,
luc.maranget@...ia.fr, paulmck@...nel.org, akiyks@...il.com,
dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, hernan.poncedeleon@...weicloud.com,
jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: Document herd7 (internal)
representation
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 05:37:06PM +0200, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > - While checking the information below using herd7, I've observed some
> > "strange" behavior with spin_is_locked() (perhaps, unsurprisingly...);
> > IAC, that's also excluded from this table/submission.
>
> For completeness, the behavior in question:
>
> $ cat T.litmus
> C T
>
> {}
>
> P0(spinlock_t *x)
> {
> int r0;
>
> spin_lock(x);
> spin_unlock(x);
> r0 = spin_is_locked(x);
> }
No "exists" clause? Maybe that's your problem.
Alan
>
> $ herd7 -conf linux-kernel.cfg T.litmus
> Test T Required
> States 0
> Ok
> Witnesses
> Positive: 0 Negative: 0
> Condition forall (true)
> Observation T Never 0 0
> Time T 0.00
> Hash=6fa204e139ddddf2cb6fa963bad117c0
>
> Haven't been using spin_is_locked for a while... perhaps I'm doing
> something wrong? (IAC, will have a closer look next week...)
>
> Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists