1 files changed, 19 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/runtime/2127 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/runtime/2127
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b81cca913
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/runtime/2127
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+<think>
+Okay, let's see. The user provided a bug report from QEMU's test-aio-multithread.c. The assertion failed is at line 371 in test_multi_fair_mutex, where counter (316636) is not equal to atomic_counter (316637). 
+
+So, the question is to classify this bug into one of the three categories: instruction, syscall, or runtime. 
+
+First, I need to understand what's going on here. The test is about multi-threading and a fair mutex. The assertion checks if a counter and an atomic counter have the same value. They differ by one, which suggests a race condition or incorrect synchronization.
+
+Looking at the categories: 
+
+- Instruction would be if the error is due to a wrong assembly instruction or something related to specific CPU instructions.
+- Syscall would involve system calls, like errors in opening files, network calls, etc.
+- Runtime errors are other issues that occur during execution, like logic errors, synchronization problems, etc.
+
+In this case, the problem seems to be a synchronization issue. The atomic_counter is likely supposed to be thread-safe, but the test is failing because the counter and atomic_counter don't match. This could be due to a bug in how the mutex is handling thread access, leading to a race condition. Since this is happening during runtime in a multi-threaded test, the error is a runtime issue. 
+
+It's not an instruction error because there's no mention of specific CPU instructions being wrong. It's not a syscall error because the problem isn't related to system calls but rather thread synchronization. Therefore, the correct category is runtime.
+</think>
+
+runtime
\ No newline at end of file