Re: [PATCH 4.9 000/105] 4.9.41-stable review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 07:54:52PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 08/04/2017 07:53 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 08/04/2017 04:14 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.41 release.
> >> There are 105 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> >> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> >> let me know.
> >>
> >> Responses should be made by Sun Aug  6 23:15:23 UTC 2017.
> >> Anything received after that time might be too late.
> >>
> >> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
> >> 	kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.9.41-rc1.gz
> >> or in the git tree and branch at:
> >>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.9.y
> >> and the diffstat can be found below.
> > 
> > randconfig build failure:
> > 
> > on x86_64:
> > 
> > drivers/built-in.o: In function `nouveau_backlight_init':
> > (.text+0x11648a): undefined reference to `backlight_device_register'
> > drivers/built-in.o: In function `nouveau_backlight_init':
> > (.text+0x1165a1): undefined reference to `backlight_device_register'
> > drivers/built-in.o: In function `nouveau_backlight_exit':
> > (.text+0x116618): undefined reference to `backlight_device_unregister'
> > /local/lnx/stable/linux-stable-rc-linux-4.9.y/Makefile:972: recipe for target 'vmlinux' failed
> > 
> > 
> > CONFIG_DRM_NOUVEAU=y
> > CONFIG_NOUVEAU_DEBUG=5
> > CONFIG_NOUVEAU_DEBUG_DEFAULT=3
> > CONFIG_DRM_NOUVEAU_BACKLIGHT=y
> > # CONFIG_FB is not set
> > CONFIG_FB_CMDLINE=y
> > CONFIG_FB_BACKLIGHT=y
> > CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_LCD_SUPPORT=y
> > # CONFIG_LCD_CLASS_DEVICE is not set
> > # CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE is not set
> > # CONFIG_VGASTATE is not set
> > 
> > 
> > Full randconfig file is attached.
> > 
> 
> and:
> warning: (PMAC_BACKLIGHT && DRM_NOUVEAU && FB_TFT) selects FB_BACKLIGHT which has unmet direct dependencies (HAS_IOMEM && FB)

Odd, is this a new failure?  I'll look at this tomorrow unless someone
has a clue as to what patch causes the issue...

thanks,

greg k-h