Hi Alex, I tried git bisect and it ended up in a qla2xxx fix (and I do not even have qlogic card in that system). I did it couple more times and landed on different patches. My latest (fourth ot fifth, I forgot :) bisect landed on the patch with commit 546a1924224078c6f582e68f890b05b387b42653 ( writeback: write_cache_pages doesn't terminate at nr_to_write <= 0) I verified that this is valid patch by running the test script 180 for nearly 500 times on the tree just prior to this patch. chandra On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:29 -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:51 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > test case 180 fails often (4 out of 5) in my x86_64 system. > > Any suggestions on how to proceed to debug ? > > I have been seeing failures like that sometimes > (more often recently I think) for a while. I > have not had the chance to really chase it down. > > If you can reproduce it pretty relibly you could > use "git bisect" to try to find out whether the > failures started to occur after a particular > commit. > > -Alex > > > regards, > > > > chandra > > > > 80 176s ... - output mismatch (see 180.out.bad)^M > > --- 180.out 2011-04-20 08:34:36.000000000 -0700^M > > +++ 180.out.bad 2011-06-03 14:10:45.000000000 -0700^M > > @@ -1 +1,4 @@^M > > QA output created by 180^M > > +file /mnt/xfsScratchMntPt/656 has incorrect size - sync failed^M > > +file /mnt/xfsScratchMntPt/818 has incorrect size - sync failed^M > > +file /mnt/xfsScratchMntPt/899 has incorrect size - sync failed^M > > Ran: 180^M > > Failures: 180^M > > Failed 1 of 1 tests^M > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > xfs mailing list > > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > > > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
