From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933001AbeEHQeK (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2018 12:34:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:45195 "EHLO mail-pf0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754736AbeEHQeH (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2018 12:34:07 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZq0WYbSqu2YjS9M3QpzSphC1yw7zBu1dY/E2oJ/p5QyYhvzme9rdMraMtKulKfn7sPENWn66w== Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm_transmit() To: Nayna Jain , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterhuewe@gmx.de, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, tpmdd@selhorst.net, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, patrickc@us.ibm.com References: <20180507160733.8817-1-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180507160733.8817-2-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: J Freyensee Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 09:34:03 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180507160733.8817-2-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: why2jjj.linux@gmail.com (J Freyensee) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 09:34:03 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm_transmit() In-Reply-To: <20180507160733.8817-2-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20180507160733.8817-1-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180507160733.8817-2-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html