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@xxxxxxx> > > 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.
