[PATCH] riscv: replace deprecated scall with ecall

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:51:56 PDT (-0700), maskray at google.com wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:41 PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 3:32 PM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > scall is a deprecated alias for ecall. ecall is used in several places,
>> > so there is no assembler compatibility concern.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com>
>> > ---
>> >  arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S             | 4 ++--
>> >  arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/rt_sigreturn.S | 2 +-
>> >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>> > index 99d38fdf8b18..2f51935612d1 100644
>> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>> > @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ handle_syscall:
>> >         REG_S a0, PT_ORIG_A0(sp)
>> >         /*
>> >          * Advance SEPC to avoid executing the original
>> > -        * scall instruction on sret
>> > +        * ecall instruction on sret
>> >          */
>> >         addi s2, s2, 0x4
>> >         REG_S s2, PT_EPC(sp)
>> > @@ -603,6 +603,6 @@ END(excp_vect_table)
>> >  #ifndef CONFIG_MMU
>> >  ENTRY(__user_rt_sigreturn)
>> >         li a7, __NR_rt_sigreturn
>> > -       scall
>> > +       ecall
>> >  END(__user_rt_sigreturn)
>> >  #endif
>> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/rt_sigreturn.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/rt_sigreturn.S
>> > index 0573705eac76..10438c7c626a 100644
>> > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/rt_sigreturn.S
>> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/vdso/rt_sigreturn.S
>> > @@ -11,6 +11,6 @@ ENTRY(__vdso_rt_sigreturn)
>> >         .cfi_startproc
>> >         .cfi_signal_frame
>> >         li a7, __NR_rt_sigreturn
>> > -       scall
>> > +       ecall
>> >         .cfi_endproc
>> >  ENDPROC(__vdso_rt_sigreturn)
>> > --
>> > 2.40.0.634.g4ca3ef3211-goog
>> >
>>
>> Ping:)
>>
>>
>> --
>> 宋方睿
>
> Ping^2 :)

Sorry this took a while, I had to fix up some merge issues but I think 
it's OK.  Should be on for-next now.