Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 13/17] selftests/bpf: Update task_local_storage/recursion test
From: bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Date: 2026-02-05 07:37:45
Also in:
bpf
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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..7bee33797 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/task_local_storage.c@@ -112,24 +112,24 @@ static void test_recursion(void) task_ls_recursion__detach(skel); /* Refer to the comment in BPF_PROG(on_update) for - * the explanation on the value 201 and 100. + * the explanation on the value 200 and 1. */
This comment directs readers to the BPF_PROG(on_update) comments in
progs/task_ls_recursion.c for an explanation of the expected values.
However, the comments in task_ls_recursion.c were not updated and still
describe the old behavior. The second comment in BPF_PROG(on_update) says:
/* This will still fail because map_b is empty and
* this BPF_PROG(on_update) has failed to acquire
* the percpu busy lock => meaning potential
* deadlock is detected and it will fail to create
* new storage.
*/
The "percpu busy lock" mentioned here no longer exists after commit
de64e0109 removed the percpu counter. With the new behavior, map_b
creation now succeeds because bpf_trampoline catches the recursion
instead.
Should the comments in task_ls_recursion.c be updated to match the new
behavior, or should this test file comment be changed to reference the
commit message instead?
[ ... ]
---
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/21702523104
AI-authorship-score: low
AI-authorship-explanation: The commit shows characteristics of human-written kernel code including a hand-crafted ASCII diagram, concise technical language, and minor inconsistencies in capitalization typical of manual editing.
issues-found: 1
issue-severity-score: low
issue-severity-explanation: Documentation inconsistency where test file references BPF program comments that were not updated to reflect the new behavior after percpu counter removal.