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 F061C71014 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:38:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D9001259A4 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:38:28 +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 5CDF625996 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:38:28 +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 0323A46738 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:38:28 +0200 (CEST) To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20210412131438.15859-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:38:27 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210412131438.15859-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.980 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [inotify.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC series 0/2] Show more vlan infos 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: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 13:38:59 -0000 bump, just in case this has been overlooked :) On 4/12/21 3:14 PM, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > The main motivation here is to make the VLAN tags configured for an > interface better visible. The approach taken in this RFC is to use the > already existing vlan-id and vlan-raw-device values. These were only > present if the vlan device was configured with those explicit options, > available with ifupdown2. > > For the other way, using the dot notation, the type was detected > correctly, but no further information about the vlan id and the used > device was present. Therefore the Inotify.pm has been changed to set the > same values for the dot notation interfaces. This results in the API > delivering the same information, not matter which type of vlan interface > it is. > > Since the vlan-id and vlan-raw-device values are filtered for dot > notation interfaces when writing out the network config, I don't see > much harm here. > > But should this approach be problematic for some reason that I have not > yet discovered, there is an alternative approach handling this in the > GUI only. Then the GUI would show the same information for both type of > vlan interfaces but the API would stay the same. > > widget-toolkit: Aaron Lauterer (1): > ui: network: add columns for vlan-id and vlan-raw-device > > src/node/NetworkView.js | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > pve-common: src/PVE/INotify.pm | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >