On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:56:33PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 12:26:35AM +0530, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > > > > On 03/01/2018 02:52 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:18:27PM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > > In tpm_transmit, after send(), the code checks for status in a loop > > > Maybe cutting hairs now but please just use the actual function name > > > instead of send(). Just makes the commit log more useful asset. > > Sure, will do. > > > > > > > - tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT); > > > > + tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL); > > > What about just calling schedule()? > > I'm not sure what you mean by "schedule()". Are you suggesting instead of > > using usleep_range(), using something with an even finer grain construct? > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > - Nayna > > kernel/sched/core.c The question I'm trying ask to is: is it better to sleep such a short time or just ask scheduler to schedule something else after each iteration? /Jarkko
