First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 468
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Alexandre David <adavid@cs.aau.dk>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Yasufumi Suzuki <yasufumi.suzuki.bq@hitachi.com>
Add CC:
CC:
URL:
Summary:

Attachment Type Creator Created Size Actions
Example model text/xml Yasufumi Suzuki 2009-04-03 08:42 2.71 KB Details
Example trace text/plain Yasufumi Suzuki 2009-04-03 08:42 491 bytes Details
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 468 depends on: Show dependency tree
Show dependency graph
Bug 468 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments:







View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Opened: 2009-04-03 08:40
A binary synchronization transition of a low priority process  is 
enabled even if a binary synchronization transition of a higher priority 
process using the same channel is possible.

Problem description:
This problem occurs only when also a delaying transition in a third 
process is enabled.
It is visible in the last transition in the attached  example trace.

Example model: see attachment 1 [details]
Example trace: see attachment 2 [details]

------- Comment #1 From Yasufumi Suzuki 2009-04-03 08:42:04 -------
Created an attachment (id=214) [details]
Example model

------- Comment #2 From Yasufumi Suzuki 2009-04-03 08:42:45 -------
Created an attachment (id=215) [details]
Example trace

------- Comment #3 From Alexandre David 2009-08-12 19:05:53 -------
Fixed in rev. 4378 (4.0.9) and 4379 (trunk).
We have changed the semantics because it was inconsistent.
Before, priority was resolved by comparing the priorities of
the processes involved in two transitions by descending order.
Now, it is resolved by considering the highest priority process,
which is in line with priority ceiling protocols.

In this example, it is normal to have the synchronization with
the new semantics (though not normal with the old one).

First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug