linux-next: Tree for Jul 11 [drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.ko]

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 9:02 PM Mario Limonciello <superm1 at kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/12/25 3:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:25 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap at infradead.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/11/25 2:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Changes since 20250710:
> >>>
> >>
> >> on x86_64, when
> >> # CONFIG_SUSPEND is not set
> >> # CONFIG_HIBERNATION is not set
> >> # CONFIG_PM is not set
> >>
> >> ERROR: modpost: "pm_hibernate_is_recovering" [drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.ko] undefined!
> >>
> >> caused by commit
> >> 530694f54dd5e ("drm/amdgpu: do not resume device in thaw for normal hibernation")
> >>
> >> Rafael, is a stub appropriate for this case?
> >
> > pm_hibernate_is_recovering() is not supposed to be called by code that
> > does not depend on CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS, but a stub returning
> > false would work for this.
>
> Thanks, I just sent out a fix for this.
>
> >
> > Mario, it would be good to fix this up in your tree.  Also, it would
> > be good to expose stuff to 0-day build testing before letting it go
> > into linux-next.  I use the bleeding-edge branch for this purpose.
> >
> Honestly; I'm surprised that 0-day didn't raise this on either dri-devel
> or amd-gfx.  I had expected at least one of those lists to raise this
> over the last week of patches.
>
> Anyone know the history why neither has 0-day?

Maybe they do, but it had too little time to get to testing  them.

That's why I asked 0-day to send success reports too for my
bleeding-edge branch.  When I get a report (either failure or success)
for it, I know that it has been tested.