ata_eh_maybe_retry_flush(9)

πŸ“¦ version 7.3.1, in nixpkgs unstable

πŸ’– ata_eh_maybe_retry_flush(9) πŸ’–

From the Kernel API Manual, bestie β€” yes, we're literally in kernel docs now, keep up πŸ’…


🌸 NAME 🌸

ata_eh_maybe_retry_flush β€” retry FLUSH if necessary, no cap.

✨ SYNOPSIS ✨

int ata_eh_maybe_retry_flush (struct ata_device *dev );

πŸŽ€ ARGUMENTS πŸŽ€

  • dev β€” the ATA device that might need a FLUSH retry. Literally the main character here 🫢

πŸ’… DESCRIPTION πŸ’…

Okay so picture this: if dev has failed FLUSH, that needs to be reported to the upper layer immediately β€” because it means dev failed to remap and has already lost at least a sector, and further FLUSH retrials won't make any difference to the lost sector. Like, the sector is gone, bestie 😭 no amount of retrying is bringing it back.

But if the FLUSH failed for other reasons β€” transmission error, for example β€” then FLUSH needs to be retried. That's the plot twist. πŸŒ€

This function determines whether a FLUSH failure retry is necessary, and if it is, it performs it. That's the whole job. ✨

πŸ”₯ RETURN πŸ”₯

  • 0 β€” EH can continue. Slay, we move. πŸ’–
  • -errno β€” EH needs to be repeated. Not the vibe, but okay, we run it back 😭

πŸ‘‘ SEE ALSO πŸ‘‘

Kernel file: ./drivers/ata/libata-eh.c β€” and the whole extended universe is:


Okay that's the page! Source/version: ./drivers/ata Β· October 2026 Β· ata_eh_maybe_retry_flush(9) out, byeeee πŸ¦‹πŸ’–

πŸ“¦ where this page comes from