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 2E04171C81 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 20 May 2022 10:19:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2357D18279 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 20 May 2022 10:19:03 +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 B21081826E for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 20 May 2022 10:19:02 +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 8038742FA9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 20 May 2022 10:19:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <c28f81ba-c9da-9bff-28f9-0f9720da662a@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 10:19:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/101.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20220519084816.193338-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <c175eac4-b9c9-dbe9-2a93-bdb4d65ab903@proxmox.com> <YodLbHr7wpUu/f1E@gaia> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <YodLbHr7wpUu/f1E@gaia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.376 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 -0.717 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 v5 manager] ui: vm network: allow to override MTU for virtio 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: Fri, 20 May 2022 08:19:03 -0000 On 20/05/2022 10:03, Oguz Bektas wrote: > though i don't think the >> "Use the special value '1' to inherit the MTU from the underlying bridge" > is the best, since the user won't see this message until they've > selected '1' as a value. that is a good point but I actually had the wrong assumption that it's always shown if the MTU field is shown, which could be OK to do for an advanced field