Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-188895-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 11:51:36 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Cc: will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
  npiggin@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
  luc.maranget@inria.fr, paulmck@kernel.org, akiyks@gmail.com,
  dlustig@nvidia.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
  linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, hernan.poncedeleon@huaweicloud.com,
  jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: Document herd7 (internal)
 representation
Message-ID: <bd6426c0-f439-4b15-9ab4-12768aa8557a@rowland.harvard.edu>
References: <20240524151356.236071-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <ZlC0IkzpQdeGj+a3@andrea>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZlC0IkzpQdeGj+a3@andrea>

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