[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eykbvi7lzhnbd6ft6cva6qu4lp5ryn3ha2fgigmao2553qm4bu@227ey5mv5ls5>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 09:52:11 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
Cc: "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro@...tmail.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v4 05/11] nvme{032,040}: Use runtime fio
background jobs
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 04:40:52AM +0000, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 5/11/23 07:09, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > The fio jobs are supposed to run long in background during the test.
> > Instead relying on a job size use explicit runtime for this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
>
> Is there any issue with the exiting approach for this change ?
The expectation of the test here is that there is a background job running.
Depending on the job size is an indirect way to express run at least for x
seconds. This gives a variable runtime as it depends the how fast fio jobs gets
executed. Explicitly telling the runtime is my opinion more robust and documents
the indention better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists