On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 9:02 PM Mario Limonciello <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/12/25 3:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:25 PM Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> 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.
