Re: [PATCH v2 25/33] ibmvfc: process NVMe/FC rports in work thread

On 7/29/26 11:52 PM, Nathan Chancellor wrote:

Hi Tyrel,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 05:01:41PM -0700, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c
index 81d9229bf388..ffb579816e84 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c

@@ -6073,6 +6119,30 @@ static void ibmvfc_do_work(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
 			}
 		}
 
+		list_for_each_entry(tgt, &vhost->nvme_scrqs.targets, queue) {
+			if (tgt->action == IBMVFC_TGT_ACTION_DEL_RPORT) {
+				tgt_dbg(tgt, "Deleteing NVMe rport\n");
+				nvme_rport = tgt->nvme_remote_port;
+				list_del(&tgt->queue);
+				ibmvfc_set_tgt_action(tgt, IBMVFC_TGT_ACTION_DELETED_RPORT);
+				spin_unlock_irqrestore(vhost->host->host_lock, flags);
+				if (nvme_rport)
+					ibmvfc_nvme_unregister_remoteport(tgt);
+				timer_delete_sync(&tgt->timer);
+				kref_put(&tgt->kref, ibmvfc_release_tgt);
+				return;
+			} else if (rport && tgt->action == IBMVFC_TGT_ACTION_DEL_AND_LOGOUT_RPORT) {
+				tgt_dbg(tgt, "Deleting NVMe rport with outstanding I/O\n");
+				nvme_rport = tgt->nvme_remote_port;
+				ibmvfc_set_tgt_action(tgt, IBMVFC_TGT_ACTION_LOGOUT_DELETED_RPORT);
+				tgt->init_retries = 0;
+				spin_unlock_irqrestore(vhost->host->host_lock, flags);
+				if (nvme_rport)
+					ibmvfc_nvme_unregister_remoteport(tgt);
+				return;
+			}
+		}
+
 		if (vhost->state == IBMVFC_INITIALIZING) {
 			if (vhost->action == IBMVFC_HOST_ACTION_TGT_DEL_FAILED) {
 				if (vhost->reinit) {

There is a warning from clang after this change landed in -next as
commit 696d1cc2aaa2 ("scsi: ibmvfc: process NVMe/FC rports in work
thread"), breaking the build when -Werror is enabled:

  drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c:6154:15: error: variable 'rport' is uninitialized when used here [-Werror,-Wuninitialized]
   6154 |                         } else if (rport && tgt->action == IBMVFC_TGT_ACTION_DEL_AND_LOGOUT_RPORT) {
        |                                    ^~~~~

Sashiko appears to point this out as well:

  https://lore.kernel.org/20260723005006.C7EE21F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org/ (local)

But I am not sure that its suggestion to use nvme_rport is correct given
the context of this code, hence just the report from my end.

I've already arrived at the conculsion that I will have to spin a v3 of this
series based on a few of the issues raised. Thanks for the heads up on the clang
warning.

-Tyrel