[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <417e9772-d622-7d98-397a-7fec162f63a0@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 08:38:01 +0000
From: Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>
To: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
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 5/18/23 00:52, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> 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.
agree, it is better to kill on rely on the variable while test is
running ...
Reviewed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>
-ck
Powered by blists - more mailing lists