From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43AED6180B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:03:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A9555972 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:03:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id C60875966 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:03:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 97F5646D7B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:03:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3d9039a7-02c7-27bd-588c-c7fe41001380@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:03:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/97.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com> References: <20220207121825.722340-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20220207121825.722340-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.059 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] NetworkEdit: allow setting 'mtu' option for guest network devices X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 18:03:36 -0000 commit subject should rather be "ui: vm network: allow to override mtu for virtio devices" On 07.02.22 13:18, Oguz Bektas wrote: > we already have the 'mtu' option inside the API, so we can just expose > that option inside the 'Advanced' menu for guest network interfaces. We have that property since commit 61a14cde8d568e552d3deaab2da76b479b8aca7b but it's only effective for when the VirtIO driver is used. The ui should reflect that as it may get really confusing for users with e1000(e) or other non-virtio models. MTU changes are notoriously tricky as it needs to be right in the whole network path, so the UX is IMO important for this