Re: [PATCH] Revert "tmpfs: don't enable large folios if not supported"

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:55:05 +0800 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 
> > Please let's not add new metadata without having told others what that
> > metadata means?
> > 
> > "Fixes:" should be sufficient.  I interpret Fixes: as "apply this to any
> > kernel which contains <that>".  Is more needed?
> 
> My concern is that if someone backports this patch to an older kernel 
> version without also backporting commit 665575cff098b, it would cause a 
> performance regression.
> 
> Is there a good way to mark this kind of dependency on another patch? 

Not that I know of.  Has someone sent 665575cff098b to -stable
maintainers and asked them to treat it as Fixes: 5a90c155defa?

> But I've already described this potential dependency in the commit 
> message, so I'm fine with just adding the "Fixes:" tag.

Yeah, I guess the supporting text will help clear confusion.

But you're right - our tooling should be able to express such things.