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:     J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@gmail.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>
 <becb898c-b778-d104-5781-899599f536d4@gmail.com>
From:   Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 18:11:50 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <becb898c-b778-d104-5781-899599f536d4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Message-Id: <107cd9f7-69a3-dbb8-1a61-541172832a0c@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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@gmail.com>

Thanks !!

Thanks & Regards,
     - Nayna