On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:33:08PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:35:49PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:42:58PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > > > (BTW, I do not trust my model yet, as it currently cannot detect the
> > > > failure case I pointed out earlier.  :-/  Here and I thought that the
> > > > point of such models was to detect additional failure cases!!!)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes, I'll have to dig deeper into it.
> > 
> > Well, as I said, I attached the current model and the error trail.
> 
> And I had bugs in my model that allowed the rcu_read_lock() model
> to nest indefinitely, which overflowed into the top bit, messing
> things up.  :-/
> 
> Attached is a fixed model.  This model validates correctly (woo-hoo!).
> Even better, gives the expected error if you comment out line 180 and
> uncomment line 213, this latter corresponding to the error case I called
> out a few days ago.
> 
> I will play with removing models of mb...

And commenting out the models of mb between the counter flips and the
test for readers still passes validation, as expected, and as shown in
the attached Promela code.

						Thanx, Paul