On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:00:42PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote: > In add_new_gdb_meta_bg, we assume that group could be non first > group in meta block group as we call ext4_meta_bg_first_block_no > to get first block of meta block group rather than call > ext4_group_first_block_no for passed group directly. Then ext4_bg_has_super > should be called with first group in meta group rather than new added > group. Or we can call ext4_group_first_block_no instead of > ext4_meta_bg_first_block_no to assume only first group of > meta group will be passed. > Either way, ext4_meta_bg_first_block_no will be useless and > could be removed. Unfortunately, I spent more time trying to understand the commit description than the C code. Perhaps this might be a better way of describing the situation? The ext4_new descs() function calls ext4_meta_bg_first_block_no() with the group paramter when the group is the first group of a meta_bg (e.g., when (group % EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK) is zero. So we can simplify things a bit by removing ext4_meta_bg_first_block_no() and an open coding its logic. Does this make more sense to tou? - Ted
