[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <becb898c-b778-d104-5781-899599f536d4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 09:34:03 -0700
From: J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>
To: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc: zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterhuewe@....de,
jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com, tpmdd@...horst.net,
jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com, patrickc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm_transmit()
> do {
> - tpm_msleep(TPM_POLL_SLEEP);
> + tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
>
I'm just curious why it was decided to still use tpm_msleep() here
instead of usleep_range() which was used in the 2nd patch.
Otherwise,
Acked-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists