From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75CF41FF137 for ; Sat, 16 May 2026 20:59:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 24E4932B3E; Sat, 16 May 2026 20:59:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Stefan Hanreich Subject: applied: [PATCH pve-manager 1/1] network: drop apply flag when generating wireguard config Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 20:59:18 +0200 Message-ID: <177895794533.244346.13381426375506156554.b4-ty@b4> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260515145622.419236-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> References: <20260515145622.419236-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778957966151 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.004 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: C2ESRJI4U2DMLVAC6GNVERJGGRS6FLRC X-Message-ID-Hash: C2ESRJI4U2DMLVAC6GNVERJGGRS6FLRC X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, 15 May 2026 16:56:19 +0200, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > Otherwise, this produces an error when applying a WireGuard > configuration with newly created interfaces, because `wg syncconf` > gets called for a non-existing interface. post-up commands get > executed for existing interfaces anyway, so subsequent calls to > ifreload for existing interfaces run `wg syncconf`, making separately > applying here unnecessary. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/1] network: drop apply flag when generating wireguard config commit: 51056af5b42e46836909e4950e1a694f9441026f