From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54785)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1df6Ew-0000XR-Gb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 11:16:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <kwolf@redhat.com>) id 1df6Ev-00080L-2B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Aug 2017 11:16:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:16:00 +0200
From: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20170808151600.GN4850@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com>
References: <20170807141630.105066-1-vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
	<20170807155717.GI6578@localhost.localdomain>
	<692a163e-acce-e594-896d-da96b7a099e9@virtuozzo.com>
	<20170808085352.GF4850@dhcp-200-186.str.redhat.com>
	<896f8482-6e3a-13e9-4cce-ca115a6c8881@virtuozzo.com>
	<645f5e9d-6a4b-1d7b-6907-6ab27e1ffa7e@virtuozzo.com>
	<51899b88-6b4b-88ce-f820-f62bc944c034@redhat.com>
	<2983bfe2-0646-2a50-0025-0211c4725f63@virtuozzo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2983bfe2-0646-2a50-0025-0211c4725f63@virtuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] iotests: fix 185
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@virtuozzo.com>
Cc: Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>, jsnow@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, mreitz@redhat.com

Am 08.08.2017 um 17:10 hat Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy geschrieben:
> 08.08.2017 18:07, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 08/08/2017 04:04 AM, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > Throttling "guaranties" that there will not be more than one
> > > > > > request. But
> > > > > > what prevent less than one, i.e. zero, like in my reproduction?
> > > > > Yes, I understand. Can we somehow make sure that at least one iteration
> > > > > is made? I'd really like to keep the functional test for block job
> > > > > throttling. I suppose a simple 'sleep 0.1' would do the trick, though
> > > > > it's not very clean.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Kevin
> > > > 
> > > > I've started with 'sleep 0.5', now there are >100 successful
> > > > iterations... The other way is to check in test that there was 0 or 1
> > > > requests, but for this it looks better to rewrite it in python.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > is sleep for ms portable?
> > Sadly, sub-second sleep is a GNU coreutils feature; I suspect the BSD
> > machines may fail to parse it.  (Of course, we could do some sort of
> > 'sleep $SMALL', where $SMALL is 0.5 if sleep supports it, and 1 otherwise).
> > 
> sleep for 1 second may lead to more then one request done before qemu quite.

_supported_os Linux

So do we really care about portability? And are all the other test cases
working on the BSDs?

Kevin