1 files changed, 29 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-2-tmp/reasoning/device/2513 b/results/classifier/deepseek-2-tmp/reasoning/device/2513
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e0fa6ee99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-2-tmp/reasoning/device/2513
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+<think>
+Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how to classify this bug report in QEMU. The user provided a description of the problem and some steps to reproduce it. Let me break it down step by step.
+
+First, the issue is about the CXL Device Missing PCI_CAP_ID_PM (01h) in the CAP List Implementation. From what I remember, PCI_CAP_ID_PM refers to the Power Management capability ID. The report mentions that this is a violation of the PCIe SPEC, which means QEMU isn't adhering to the specifications set by thePCI-SIG.
+
+Looking at the problem description, it's stating that without this PM capability, certain vendors can't test the power management functions, like Linux Runtime PM. This affects the ability to change D-states (D1, D2, D3_Hot), which are different low-power states for devices. So, the bug isn't causing a crash or error but is non-compliant with standards and could cause issues for users relying on these power management features.
+
+Now, looking at the categories provided: mistranslation, assembly, other, device, graphic, socket, network, KVM, boot, vnc, debug, files, permissions, performance, kernel, peripherals, hypervisor. I need to figure out which one fits best.
+
+The problem is related to PCIe devices and their capabilities. Since CXL (Compute Express Link) devices are involved, which are a type of peripheral device, this seems relevant. The missing PM capability in the CAP list is a hardware-related issue within QEMU's emulation or configuration of these devices.
+
+I don't think it's about translation issues because that would involve converting code between architectures, which isn't mentioned here. It's also not directly related to graphics, networking (though network devices do have their own PCIe capabilities), but in this case, it's a general power management capability missing for CXL devices.
+
+So the categories I'm considering are "device" and "peripherals." Device might be too broad, but peripherals specifically refers to hardware components that connect to a computer, which aligns with PCIe devices. However, since this is about PCIe capabilities in QEMU, perhaps "device" is more accurate because it's about how QEMU handles device configurations.
+
+Wait, but looking at the categories again, "peripherals" could also fit as it pertains to hardware devices attached to the system. But I'm not entirely sure if that's the intended category here.
+
+Alternatively, since this is a violation of PCIe specifications and relates to device capabilities, maybe "device" is more appropriate. Or perhaps there's another category like "kernel," but that doesn't seem right because it's about device configuration in QEMU, which runs as user space with KVM.
+
+Wait, the user provided some possible categories: hypervisor (KVM), device, etc. Since this is related to how CXL devices are being emulated or configured in QEMU, which would be part of the device emulation, perhaps "device" is the correct category.
+
+Alternatively, if it's about missing hardware capabilities and thus affecting the functionality when using certain features, maybe it falls under "peripherals." But I'm not entirely sure. Maybe I should think about what each category typically encompasses in bug reports for QEMU.
+
+In QEMU/KVM bugs, categories like "device" usually refer to issues with device emulation, such as USB devices, network adapters, etc. Since this is about PCIe capabilities for CXL devices, which are a type of hardware device emulated by QEMU, it's more aligned with the "device" category.
+
+Therefore, I think the best fit here is "device."
+</think>
+
+device
\ No newline at end of file