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@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. agree, it is better to kill on rely on the variable while test is running ... Reviewed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@xxxxxxxxxx> -ck
