Re: [PATCH v7 8/8] scsi: ibmvfc: handle extended FPIN events

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The `ibmvfc_extended_fpin_test` test suite is entirely invalid due to missing KUnit assertions and incorrect statistics targeting.
--

commit 7f2470a8cbfd29182f9253c971ce356e69e43c8e
Author: Dave Marquardt <davemarq@linux.ibm.com>

scsi: ibmvfc: handle extended FPIN events

Implement support for extended FPIN messages received via the asynchronous 
sub-queue. Add parsing and processing logic to convert these into 
fc_els_fpin structures. Include comprehensive KUnit tests to validate the 
extended FPIN event handling.

> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc_kunit.c b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc_kunit.c
> index 47f7c4e79cd81..b016c7da24cd6 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc_kunit.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ibmvscsi/ibmvfc_kunit.c

[ ... ]

> +#define IBMVFC_TEST_FPIN_EXT(fs, ev, stat, crq) {				\
> +	struct ibmvfc_async_crq_event ae = { .type = IBMVFC_ASYNC_CRQ_SUB };	\
> +	(crq).valid = 0x80;							\
> +	(crq).flags = IBMVFC_ASYNC_IS_FPIN_EXT;					\
> +	(crq).link_state = IBMVFC_AE_LS_LINK_UP;				\
> +	(crq).fpin_status = (fs);						\
> +	(crq).event = cpu_to_be16(IBMVFC_AE_FPIN);				\
> +	(crq).wwpn = cpu_to_be64(tgt->wwpn);					\
> +	(crq).fpin_data.flags = IBMVFC_FPIN_EVENT_TYPE_VALID;			\
> +	(crq).fpin_data.event_type = cpu_to_be16((ev));				\
> +	ae.subq = *(struct ibmvfc_async_sub_crq *)&(crq);			\
> +	pre = READ_ONCE(tgt->rport->fpin_stats.stat);				\
> +	ibmvfc_handle_async(&ae, vhost);					\
> +	flush_workqueue(vhost->fpin_workq);					\
> +	post = READ_ONCE(tgt->rport->fpin_stats.stat);				\
> +}

[Severity: Medium]
Does this macro actually verify the statistics have changed? It captures the
pre and post state, but doesn't appear to perform any KUnit assertions
(like KUNIT_EXPECT_GE) to validate the test results.

Additionally, this macro always queries tgt->rport->fpin_stats for all events.
Is this correct for host-level link congestion events which might update
fc_host->fpin_stats instead?

> +
> +/**
> + * ibmvfc_extended_fpin_test - unit test for extended FPIN events
> + * @test: pointer to kunit structure
> + *
> + * Tests
> + *
> + * Return: void
> + */
> +static void ibmvfc_extended_fpin_test(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	enum ibmvfc_ae_fpin_status fs;

[ ... ]

> +	for (fs = IBMVFC_AE_FPIN_LINK_CONGESTED; fs <= IBMVFC_AE_FPIN_CONGESTION_CLEARED; fs++) {
> +		switch (fs) {
> +		case IBMVFC_AE_FPIN_PORT_CLEARED:
> +		case IBMVFC_AE_FPIN_CONGESTION_CLEARED: {
> +			struct ibmvfc_async_crq_event ae = { .type = IBMVFC_ASYNC_CRQ_SUB };
> +
> +			crq[fs].valid = 0x80;
> +			crq[fs].flags = IBMVFC_ASYNC_IS_FPIN_EXT;
> +			crq[fs].link_state = IBMVFC_AE_LS_LINK_UP;
> +			crq[fs].fpin_status = fs;
> +			crq[fs].event = cpu_to_be16(IBMVFC_AE_FPIN);
> +			crq[fs].wwpn = cpu_to_be64(tgt->wwpn);
> +			crq[fs].fpin_data.flags = IBMVFC_FPIN_EVENT_TYPE_VALID;
> +			crq[fs].fpin_data.event_type = cpu_to_be16(FPIN_CONGN_CLEAR);
> +			ae.subq = *(struct ibmvfc_async_sub_crq *)&crq[fs];
> +			pre = READ_ONCE(tgt->rport->fpin_stats.cn_clear);
> +			ibmvfc_handle_async(&ae, vhost);
> +			flush_workqueue(vhost->fpin_workq);
> +			post = READ_ONCE(tgt->rport->fpin_stats.cn_clear);
> +			break;
> +		}

[Severity: Medium]
Similar to the macro above, is there a missing KUnit assertion here in
ibmvfc_extended_fpin_test() to validate that the statistics were properly
updated?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260831-ibmvfc-fpin-support-v7-0-77d0b9809080@linux.ibm.com?part=8