[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4896f0b6-70b7-77ad-1b33-f13890b6fec2@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:09:41 +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 05/10/2018 06:11 PM, Nayna Jain wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Just to add bit more details:
usleep_range() is used in wait_for_tpm_stat() and get_burstcount() which
are expected to return quickly. tpm_transmit() is a generic function
used across all drivers and commands.
Some of the commands (eg. hash, key generation) take longer compared to
other commands (eg. extend). The sleep time in tpm_transmit is reduced
but kept in msecs to balance between the smaller and longer commands.
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
>
>>
>> Otherwise,
>>
>> Acked-by: Jay Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>
>
> Thanks !!
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> - Nayna
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists