From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 DFB207699C for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:57:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C9A57FB40 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:57:21 +0200 (CEST) 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 60E8AFB35 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:57:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 33BB742081 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:57:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <07045378-5724-981e-6ba7-ad3117f12d42@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:56:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20210716074050.3981444-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <20210716074050.3981444-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210716074050.3981444-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.435 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 2/2] interfaces: improve bridge_fd handling X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:57:51 -0000 On 16.07.21 09:40, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > and ignore values with a warning that are outside of the kernels > expected range. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler > --- > src/PVE/INotify.pm | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 applied, but .. > diff --git a/src/PVE/INotify.pm b/src/PVE/INotify.pm > index 4f682be..ad45cd2 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/INotify.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/INotify.pm > @@ -1265,8 +1265,10 @@ sub __interface_to_string { > =20 > $v =3D defined($d->{bridge_fd}) ? $d->{bridge_fd} : 0; > # 0 is only allowed when STP is disabled > - if ($v || $no_stp) { > + if ($no_stp || ($v >=3D 2 && $v <=3D 30)) { > $raw .=3D "\tbridge-fd $v\n"; > + } else { > + warn "'$iface': not setting 'bridge_fd' to value '$v' outside of = allowed range 2-30\n"; this warns now also for the case when the user did not configured it at a= ll but *we* fell back to `0`. I made two followups, one cleanup in general (independent of the changes = in this series) and one for above. > } > $done->{bridge_fd} =3D 1; > =20 >=20