/* * Just taken from alpha implementation. * This can't work well, perhaps. *//* *  Generic semaphore code. Buyer beware. Do your own * specific changes in <asm/semaphore-helper.h> */#include <linux/sched.h>#include <linux/wait.h>#include <asm/semaphore.h>#include <asm/semaphore-helper.h>spinlock_t semaphore_wake_lock;/* * Semaphores are implemented using a two-way counter: * The "count" variable is decremented for each process * that tries to sleep, while the "waking" variable is * incremented when the "up()" code goes to wake up waiting * processes. * * 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. * * waking_non_zero() (from asm/semaphore.h) must execute * atomically. * * When __up() is called, the count was negative before * incrementing it, and we need to wake up somebody. * * This routine adds one to the count of processes that need to * wake up and exit.  ALL waiting processes actually wake up but * only the one that gets to the "waking" field first will gate * through and acquire the semaphore.  The others will go back * to sleep. * * 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. */void __up(struct semaphore *sem){	wake_one_more(sem);	wake_up(&sem->wait);}/* * Perform the "down" function.  Return zero for semaphore acquired, * return negative for signalled out of the function. * * If called from __down, the return is ignored and the wait loop is * not interruptible.  This means that a task waiting on a semaphore * using "down()" cannot be killed until someone does an "up()" on * the semaphore. * * If called from __down_interruptible, the return value gets checked * upon return.  If the return value is negative then the task continues * with the negative value in the return register (it can be tested by * the caller). * * Either form may be used in conjunction with "up()". * */#define DOWN_VAR				\	struct task_struct *tsk = current;	\	wait_queue_t wait;			\	init_waitqueue_entry(&wait, tsk);#define DOWN_HEAD(task_state)						\									\									\	tsk->state = (task_state);					\	add_wait_queue(&sem->wait, &wait);				\									\	/*								\	 * Ok, we're set up.  sem->count is known to be less than zero	\	 * so we must wait.						\	 *								\	 * We can let go the lock for purposes of waiting.		\	 * We re-acquire it after awaking so as to protect		\	 * all semaphore operations.					\	 *								\	 * If "up()" is called before we call waking_non_zero() then	\	 * we will catch it right away.  If it is called later then	\	 * we will have to go through a wakeup cycle to catch it.	\	 *								\	 * Multiple waiters contend for the semaphore lock to see	\	 * who gets to gate through and who has to wait some more.	\	 */								\	for (;;) {#define DOWN_TAIL(task_state)			\		tsk->state = (task_state);	\	}					\	tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;		\	remove_wait_queue(&sem->wait, &wait);void __down(struct semaphore * sem){	DOWN_VAR	DOWN_HEAD(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)	if (waking_non_zero(sem))		break;	schedule();	DOWN_TAIL(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)}int __down_interruptible(struct semaphore * sem){	int ret = 0;	DOWN_VAR	DOWN_HEAD(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)	ret = waking_non_zero_interruptible(sem, tsk);	if (ret)	{		if (ret == 1)			/* ret != 0 only if we get interrupted -arca */			ret = 0;		break;	}	schedule();	DOWN_TAIL(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)	return ret;}int __down_trylock(struct semaphore * sem){	return waking_non_zero_trylock(sem);}