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:
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.
I think that advice is wrong because nvme_rport has not yet been set if
the "else" statement is reached. How about the change below?
Thanks,
Bart.
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c
b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c
index dfa231b6cc47..9e752978dad8 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc-core.c
@@ -5984,8 +5984,6 @@ static void ibmvfc_do_work(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
{
struct ibmvfc_target *tgt;
unsigned long flags;
- struct fc_rport *rport;
- struct nvme_fc_remote_port *nvme_rport;
LIST_HEAD(purge);
int rc;
@@ -6103,6 +6101,8 @@ static void ibmvfc_do_work(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
list_for_each_entry(tgt, &vhost->scsi_scrqs.targets, queue) {
if (tgt->action == IBMVFC_TGT_ACTION_DEL_RPORT) {
+ struct fc_rport *rport;
+
tgt_dbg(tgt, "Deleting rport\n");
rport = tgt->rport;
tgt->rport = NULL;
@@ -6115,6 +6115,8 @@ static void ibmvfc_do_work(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
kref_put(&tgt->kref, ibmvfc_release_tgt);
return;
} else if (tgt->action ==
IBMVFC_TGT_ACTION_DEL_AND_LOGOUT_RPORT) {
+ struct fc_rport *rport;
+
tgt_dbg(tgt, "Deleting rport with I/O
outstanding\n");
rport = tgt->rport;
tgt->rport = NULL;
@@ -6141,6 +6143,8 @@ 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) {
+ struct nvme_fc_remote_port *nvme_rport;
+
tgt_dbg(tgt, "Deleteing NVMe rport\n");
nvme_rport = tgt->nvme_remote_port;
list_del(&tgt->queue);
@@ -6151,7 +6155,9 @@ static void ibmvfc_do_work(struct ibmvfc_host *vhost)
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) {
+ } else if (tgt->action ==
IBMVFC_TGT_ACTION_DEL_AND_LOGOUT_RPORT) {
+ struct nvme_fc_remote_port *nvme_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);
