On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 07:15:37AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > + bool no_checksum; > > The change is reasonable overall, but I'm not a fan of having a > negative boolean like this (i.e. one that starts with no_*). Can we > reverse the sense of this and call it "must_checksum" or something? I can invert it. It just seems like the normal case should be no-flag one, but either version will work just fine.
