[PATCH v2] selftests: timers: valid-adjtimex: fix coding style issues

[PATCH v2] selftests: timers: valid-adjtimex: fix coding style issues

[Rujra Bhatt]

This patch corrects minor coding style issues to comply with the Linux kernel coding style:

- Align closing parentheses to match opening ones in printf statements.
- Break long lines to keep them within the 100-column limit.

These changes address warnings reported by checkpatch.pl and do not
affect functionality.

changes in v2 : 
- Resubmitted the patch with a properly formatted commit message,
following patch submission guidelines, as suggested by Shuah Khan.

Signed-off-by: Rujra Bhatt <braker.noob.kernel@gmail.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/timers/valid-adjtimex.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/valid-adjtimex.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/valid-adjtimex.c
index 6b7801055ad1..5110f9ee285c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/valid-adjtimex.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/valid-adjtimex.c
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ int validate_freq(void)
                if (tx.freq == outofrange_freq[i]) {
                        printf("[FAIL]\n");
                        printf("ERROR: out of range value %ld actually set!\n",
-                                       tx.freq);
+                              tx.freq);
                        pass = -1;
                        goto out;
                }
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ int validate_freq(void)
                        if (ret >= 0) {
                                printf("[FAIL]\n");
                                printf("Error: No failure on invalid
ADJ_FREQUENCY %ld\n",
-                                       invalid_freq[i]);
+                                      invalid_freq[i]);
                                pass = -1;
                                goto out;
                        }
@@ -238,7 +238,8 @@ int set_bad_offset(long sec, long usec, int use_nano)
        tmx.time.tv_usec = usec;
        ret = clock_adjtime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &tmx);
        if (ret >= 0) {
-               printf("Invalid (sec: %ld  usec: %ld) did not fail! ",
tmx.time.tv_sec, tmx.time.tv_usec);
+               printf("Invalid (sec: %ld  usec: %ld) did not fail! ",
+                      tmx.time.tv_sec, tmx.time.tv_usec);
                printf("[FAIL]\n");
                return -1;
        }
--
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: timers: valid-adjtimex: fix coding style issues

[Shuah Khan]

On 5/22/25 21:59, Rujra Bhatt wrote:
> 
> This patch corrects minor coding style issues to comply with the Linux kernel coding style:
> 
> - Align closing parentheses to match opening ones in printf statements.
> - Break long lines to keep them within the 100-column limit.
> 
> These changes address warnings reported by checkpatch.pl and do not
> affect functionality.
> 
> changes in v2 :
> - Resubmitted the patch with a properly formatted commit message,
> following patch submission guidelines, as suggested by Shuah Khan.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rujra Bhatt <braker.noob.kernel@gmail.com>

Sorry - I didn't realize these are all coding style related
printf - I am no longer concerned about the length of print
statements.

It is too much churn with little benefit.

thanks,
-- Shuah

Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: timers: valid-adjtimex: fix coding style issues

[Rujra Bhatt]

Respected Shuah,


On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:38 PM Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 5/22/25 21:59, Rujra Bhatt wrote:
> >
> > This patch corrects minor coding style issues to comply with the Linux kernel coding style:
> >
> > - Align closing parentheses to match opening ones in printf statements.
> > - Break long lines to keep them within the 100-column limit.
> >
> > These changes address warnings reported by checkpatch.pl and do not
> > affect functionality.
> >
> > changes in v2 :
> > - Resubmitted the patch with a properly formatted commit message,
> > following patch submission guidelines, as suggested by Shuah Khan.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rujra Bhatt <braker.noob.kernel@gmail.com>
>
> Sorry - I didn't realize these are all coding style related
> printf - I am no longer concerned about the length of print
> statements.
>
> It is too much churn with little benefit.
>

Thank you for the feedback , also understanding your perspective.
For future contributions, I will focus on more substantive changes,
unless stylistic
fixes are explicitly requested.

thank you,
regards,
Rujra Bhatt