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 945EB948FE
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:03:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6DAE3BEE5
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:03:24 +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
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:03:23 +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 E4062484D8
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:03:22 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <9baf58a3-7367-ec80-00b9-a41e114ad816@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:03:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:110.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/110.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20230224110621.765001-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230224110621.765001-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.051 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
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: Re: [PATCH common] fix #4547: set MTU on
 dynamically created vlan bridges
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: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:03:54 -0000

On 24/02/2023 12:06, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> Otherwise the created vlan bridge has the default MTU, which is
> unexpected when the original bridge has some other MTU configured.
> 
> We already do this for the firewall bridges, so we should do so too for
> the vlan bridges.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> ---
> technically this is a breaking change i think, since someone might
> depend on the fact that the vlan bridges always have the default mtu,
> but there is no way to configure that besides from manually modifying
> the /etc/network/interfaces file, so not completely sure
> if we want to do that now, or with the next major release

meh, if we adopt that view on what a breaking change is we wouldn't
be allowed to fix any bug ;-)  

> 
>  src/PVE/Network.pm | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
>

applied, thanks!