Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm_transmit()
To:     Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        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 <why2jjj.linux@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <becb898c-b778-d104-5781-899599f536d4@gmail.com>
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
Precedence: bulk


>   		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@gmail.com>