Hi Tyrel,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 05:01:41PM -0700, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> 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/[email protected]/
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.
--
Cheers,
Nathan
