On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Peter Hüwe wrote:
> Am Montag, 22. September 2014, 19:13:38 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
>
> >
> > This does look much nicer, lets use this version.
> >
> > I think Peter were prefer a new clean patch that superceeds the
> > original.
> >
> > > + if (!priv->irq_tested) {
> >
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Peter Hüwe wrote:
Am Montag, 22. September 2014, 19:13:38 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
This does look much nicer, lets use this version.
I think Peter were prefer a new clean patch that superceeds the
original.
+ if (!priv-irq_tested) {
I think the sleep
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:50:00AM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
+ if (!priv->irq_tested) {
I think the sleep and check is still needed here, the IRQ delivery
could race relative to the MMIO read of completion, a sleep is the
only way we could
Am Montag, 22. September 2014, 19:13:38 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
>
> This does look much nicer, lets use this version.
>
> I think Peter were prefer a new clean patch that superceeds the
> original.
>
> > + if (!priv->irq_tested) {
>
> I think the sleep and check is still needed here, the
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:50:00AM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 08:22:58PM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
> >
> >> It's spending that time (now 3 seconds) in tpm_tis_send_data.
> >
> > Due to request_locality?
>
> The first command
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:50:00AM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 08:22:58PM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
It's spending that time (now 3 seconds) in tpm_tis_send_data.
Due to request_locality?
The first command transmitted
Am Montag, 22. September 2014, 19:13:38 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
This does look much nicer, lets use this version.
I think Peter were prefer a new clean patch that superceeds the
original.
+ if (!priv-irq_tested) {
I think the sleep and check is still needed here, the IRQ delivery
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:50:00AM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
+ if (!priv-irq_tested) {
I think the sleep and check is still needed here, the IRQ delivery
could race relative to the MMIO read of completion, a sleep is the
only way we could
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Scot Doyle wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 08:22:58PM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
>>
>>> It's spending that time (now 3 seconds) in tpm_tis_send_data.
>>
>> Due to request_locality?
>
> The first command transmitted (TPM_CAP_PROP)
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Scot Doyle wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 08:22:58PM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
It's spending that time (now 3 seconds) in tpm_tis_send_data.
Due to request_locality?
The first command transmitted (TPM_CAP_PROP) in
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 08:22:58PM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
>
>> It's spending that time (now 3 seconds) in tpm_tis_send_data.
>
> Due to request_locality?
The first command transmitted (TPM_CAP_PROP) in tpm_get_timeouts goes
through tpm_tis_send
On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 08:22:58PM +, Scot Doyle wrote:
It's spending that time (now 3 seconds) in tpm_tis_send_data.
Due to request_locality?
The first command transmitted (TPM_CAP_PROP) in tpm_get_timeouts goes
through tpm_tis_send which
12 matches
Mail list logo