From: Jure =?UTF-8?B?UGXEjWFy?= Subject: Re: ixt3 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:06:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20061017110637.187ae3c0.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> References: <20061017103617.cb1a34c2.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> <20061017085130.GX6221@schatzie.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.pecar.org ([193.95.219.68]:35166 "EHLO mail.pecar.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422745AbWJQJGo convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:06:44 -0400 Received: from disko.pecar.org (unknown [192.168.0.14]) by mail.pecar.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A87E175AB for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:06:41 +0200 (CEST) To: Andreas Dilger In-Reply-To: <20061017085130.GX6221@schatzie.adilger.int> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:51:30 -0600 Andreas Dilger wrote: > None of the retry code has been looked at. This is what I'm mostly interested in ... predictable, well behaving an= d tested error handling & recovery. Is ext4 going to be any better here= than ext3?=20 --=20 Jure Pe=C4=8Dar http://jure.pecar.org