[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <107cd9f7-69a3-dbb8-1a61-541172832a0c@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 18:11:50 +0530
From: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.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()
On 05/08/2018 10:04 PM, J Freyensee wrote:
>
>> 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.
TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL is in msec i.e. 1 msec and usleep_range() is used only
when timeout is needed in usecs.
>
> Otherwise,
>
> Acked-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>
Thanks !!
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
Powered by blists - more mailing lists