On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 9:33 PM [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c
index 42e822ea3..559727b05 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c

@@ -117,19 +117,19 @@ static void test_recursion(void)

The comment just above this hunk at test_recursion() says:

    /* Refer to the comment in BPF_PROG(on_update) for
     * the explanation on the value 201 and 100.
     */

Should this comment be updated to reference the new expected values 200 and 1
instead of the old values 201 and 100?

Indeed. Will update the commit message.

quoted

      map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.map_a);
      err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &task_fd, &value);
      ASSERT_OK(err, "lookup map_a");
-     ASSERT_EQ(value, 201, "map_a value");
-     ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->nr_del_errs, 1, "bpf_task_storage_delete busy");
+     ASSERT_EQ(value, 200, "map_a value");
+     ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->nr_del_errs, 0, "bpf_task_storage_delete busy");

      map_fd = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.map_b);
      err = bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &task_fd, &value);
      ASSERT_OK(err, "lookup map_b");
-     ASSERT_EQ(value, 100, "map_b value");
+     ASSERT_EQ(value, 1, "map_b value");

[ ... ]


---
AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md

CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21539340647

AI-authorship-score: low
AI-authorship-explanation: The commit message demonstrates deep BPF subsystem expertise with detailed execution flow diagrams that suggest human authorship from a domain expert.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: Stale comment in test code references old expected values, causing potential confusion but no functional impact.