[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6ef601be-5627-6746-bd4a-4f391aba8b04@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 00:26:35 +0530
From: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterhuewe@....de,
tpmdd@...horst.net, jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com,
patrickc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tpm: reduce poll sleep time between send() and recv()
in tpm_transmit()
On 03/01/2018 02:52 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:18:27PM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote:
>> In tpm_transmit, after send(), the code checks for status in a loop
> Maybe cutting hairs now but please just use the actual function name
> instead of send(). Just makes the commit log more useful asset.
Sure, will do.
>
>> - tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT);
>> + tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
> What about just calling schedule()?
I'm not sure what you mean by "schedule()". Are you suggesting instead
of using usleep_range(), using something with an even finer grain
construct?
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
> /Jarkko
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists