On Tue, 2026-03-31 at 17:23 +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > Gabriele Monaco <[email protected]> writes: > > On Tue, 2026-03-31 at 12:49 +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c > > > b/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c > > > index c1347da69e9d..59091863c17c 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/rv/monitors/sleep/sleep.c > > > @@ -162,6 +164,11 @@ static void handle_sys_enter(void *data, struct > > > pt_regs > > > *regs, long id) > > > break; > > > } > > > break; > > > +#ifdef __NR_epoll_wait > > > + case __NR_epoll_wait: > > > + ltl_atom_set(mon, LTL_EPOLL_WAIT, true); > > > + break; > > > +#endif > > > > Sashiko (the AI bot) wonders why this isn't ltl_atom_update() like other > > things > > around here. Is that intentional? > > No that's not intentional. It does not affect verification result, but > still should be fixed. I will send v2. > > Funnily a colleague just told me earlier today about how good AIs are at > reviewing..
Well, they're probably already better than (most of) us in those kind of consistency assessments.. Anyway, I tried your changes and it seems to work as I'd expect. Feel free to send a V2 and I can include it in the pull request. Thanks, Gabriele
