[PATCH] someone broke reiserfs V3 mount options, this fixes it

[Hans Reiser]

questions to vitaly.....
> --- Begin Message ---
> On Tuesday 17 January 2006 21:58, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > The result is not expected, Vitaly please look into it.
> > 
> > Hans
> > 
> > Bruce Guenter wrote:
> > 
> > >Hi.
> > >
> > >I've been running a few tests with reiserfs and tails, and have been
> > >unable to create a setup where the use (or lack) of tails results in a
> > >significant difference in the amount of disk space used.
>
> thank you for the report, the attached patch should fix 
> the broken mount options. please try it.
>
> > >Here's what I've done:
> > >
> > >1. Create a fresh 1GB filesystem (in a file on loopback), using reiserfs
> > >with no options.
> > >
> > >2. Mount the filesystem with either no options, "notail", "tails=off",
> > >"tails=on", or "tails=small".
> > >
> > >3. Unpack a sources tarball onto the filesystem, consisting of two fully
> > >compiled versions of the linux kernel.  The tarball contains 47996 files
> > >and 3321 directories totalling about 660MB of space.
> > >
> > >4. Measure the free disk space using df.
> > >
> > >5. Use dd to fill up the free disk space and count how many 1kB blocks
> > >it could write.
> > >
> > >In all of the tests, the result was within 12kB of each other.  In fact,
> > >the tests with "notail" or "tails=off" options had more usable disk
> > >space than when using tails.
> > >
> > >Results:
> > >
> > >Options    1K-blocks    Used Available
> > >default      1023964  645988  377976
> > >notail       1023964  645988  377976
> > >tails=off    1023964  645996  377968
> > >tails=on     1023964  646000  377964
> > >tails=small  1023964  645996  377968
> > >
> > >default      377600+0 records out
> > >notail       377600+0 records out
> > >tails=off    377592+0 records out
> > >tails=on     377588+0 records out
> > >tails=small  377592+0 records out
> > >
> > >I've put the log files and scripts up for review at
> > >	http://untroubled.org/reiserfsdf/
> > >I'm using Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.14-gentoo-r5
> > >
> > >Am I missing something, is this an expected result, or is something
> > >broken?
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
>
> -- 
> Vitaly
> --- linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm3-clean/fs/reiserfs/super.c	2005-12-21 23:57:54.000000000 +0300
> +++ linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm3/fs/reiserfs/super.c	2006-01-18 21:28:25.206460792 +0300
> @@ -1131,7 +1131,7 @@
>  			REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt &= ~(1 << REISERFS_ATTRS);
>  		}
>  	} else if (le32_to_cpu(rs->s_flags) & reiserfs_attrs_cleared) {
> -		REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt |= REISERFS_ATTRS;
> +		REISERFS_SB(s)->s_mount_opt |= (1 << REISERFS_ATTRS);
>  	}
>  }
>  
>
> --- End Message ---