1 files changed, 166 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/arch/v850/kernel/semaphore.c b/arch/v850/kernel/semaphore.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..fc89fd661c99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/v850/kernel/semaphore.c
@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+/*
+ * arch/v850/kernel/semaphore.c -- Semaphore support
+ *
+ *  Copyright (C) 1998-2000  IBM Corporation
+ *  Copyright (C) 1999  Linus Torvalds
+ *
+ * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General
+ * Public License.  See the file COPYING in the main directory of this
+ * archive for more details.
+ *
+ * This file is a copy of the s390 version, arch/s390/kernel/semaphore.c
+ *    Author(s): Martin Schwidefsky
+ * which was derived from the i386 version, linux/arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c
+ */
+
+#include <linux/errno.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+
+#include <asm/semaphore.h>
+
+/*
+ * Semaphores are implemented using a two-way counter:
+ * The "count" variable is decremented for each process
+ * that tries to acquire the semaphore, while the "sleeping"
+ * variable is a count of such acquires.
+ *
+ * Notably, the inline "up()" and "down()" functions can
+ * efficiently test if they need to do any extra work (up
+ * needs to do something only if count was negative before
+ * the increment operation.
+ *
+ * "sleeping" and the contention routine ordering is
+ * protected by the semaphore spinlock.
+ *
+ * Note that these functions are only called when there is
+ * contention on the lock, and as such all this is the
+ * "non-critical" part of the whole semaphore business. The
+ * critical part is the inline stuff in <asm/semaphore.h>
+ * where we want to avoid any extra jumps and calls.
+ */
+
+/*
+ * Logic:
+ *  - only on a boundary condition do we need to care. When we go
+ *    from a negative count to a non-negative, we wake people up.
+ *  - when we go from a non-negative count to a negative do we
+ *    (a) synchronize with the "sleeper" count and (b) make sure
+ *    that we're on the wakeup list before we synchronize so that
+ *    we cannot lose wakeup events.
+ */
+
+void __up(struct semaphore *sem)
+{
+        wake_up(&sem->wait);
+}
+
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(semaphore_lock);
+
+void __sched __down(struct semaphore * sem)
+{
+        struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+        DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, tsk);
+        tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
+        add_wait_queue_exclusive(&sem->wait, &wait);
+
+        spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
+        sem->sleepers++;
+        for (;;) {
+                int sleepers = sem->sleepers;
+
+                /*
+                 * Add "everybody else" into it. They aren't
+                 * playing, because we own the spinlock.
+                 */
+                if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers - 1, &sem->count)) {
+                        sem->sleepers = 0;
+                        break;
+                }
+                sem->sleepers = 1;      /* us - see -1 above */
+                spin_unlock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
+
+                schedule();
+                tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
+                spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
+        }
+        spin_unlock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
+        remove_wait_queue(&sem->wait, &wait);
+        tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
+        wake_up(&sem->wait);
+}
+
+int __sched __down_interruptible(struct semaphore * sem)
+{
+        int retval = 0;
+        struct task_struct *tsk = current;
+        DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, tsk);
+        tsk->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
+        add_wait_queue_exclusive(&sem->wait, &wait);
+
+        spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
+        sem->sleepers ++;
+        for (;;) {
+                int sleepers = sem->sleepers;
+
+                /*
+                 * With signals pending, this turns into
+                 * the trylock failure case - we won't be
+                 * sleeping, and we* can't get the lock as
+                 * it has contention. Just correct the count
+                 * and exit.
+                 */
+                if (signal_pending(current)) {
+                        retval = -EINTR;
+                        sem->sleepers = 0;
+                        atomic_add(sleepers, &sem->count);
+                        break;
+                }
+
+                /*
+                 * Add "everybody else" into it. They aren't
+                 * playing, because we own the spinlock. The
+                 * "-1" is because we're still hoping to get
+                 * the lock.
+                 */
+                if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers - 1, &sem->count)) {
+                        sem->sleepers = 0;
+                        break;
+                }
+                sem->sleepers = 1;      /* us - see -1 above */
+                spin_unlock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
+
+                schedule();
+                tsk->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
+                spin_lock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
+        }
+        spin_unlock_irq(&semaphore_lock);
+        tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
+        remove_wait_queue(&sem->wait, &wait);
+        wake_up(&sem->wait);
+        return retval;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Trylock failed - make sure we correct for
+ * having decremented the count.
+ */
+int __down_trylock(struct semaphore * sem)
+{
+        unsigned long flags;
+        int sleepers;
+
+        spin_lock_irqsave(&semaphore_lock, flags);
+        sleepers = sem->sleepers + 1;
+        sem->sleepers = 0;
+
+        /*
+         * Add "everybody else" and us into it. They aren't
+         * playing, because we own the spinlock.
+         */
+        if (!atomic_add_negative(sleepers, &sem->count))
+                wake_up(&sem->wait);
+
+        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&semaphore_lock, flags);
+        return 1;
+}