From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EDB21FF0E1 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:56:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 850452147D; Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:56:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 15:56:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [pve-network 2/2] fix #7837: simpleplugin: make use of get_subnets_with_config To: Daniel Herzig , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260826154318.618730-1-d.herzig@proxmox.com> <20260826154318.618730-2-d.herzig@proxmox.com> From: Hannes Laimer Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <20260826154318.618730-2-d.herzig@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787839003772 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.264 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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: RMQ5DN3PQIZ4YRVUGTQ27TKRREJELA25 X-Message-ID-Hash: RMQ5DN3PQIZ4YRVUGTQ27TKRREJELA25 X-MailFrom: h.laimer@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: Generally this LGTM! EVPN has the same problem[1], so fixing it there as well would make sense for this series. Aside from that, for more than one patch a `--cover-letter` would be nice, that simplifies answering. Also allows to add some extra context if needed. nit: the commit messages mostly describe what the code does, ideally they would include more of the _why_, something like: ``` Subnets were read from the running config instead of the one passed in, so callers that generate without committing first, like the dry-run, never saw pending subnet changes in the result. ``` for the commit that mentions the bugzilla issue. [1] https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-network.git;a=blob;f=src/PVE/Network/SDN/Zones/EvpnPlugin.pm;h=0e79707c374609f2505d842f99633e6311794f15;hb=refs/heads/master#l242 On 2026-08-26 17:43, Daniel Herzig wrote: > At the given point we already have the subnet configuration by hand, so > make sure to use it, instead of inherently falling back to > re-reading '/etc/pve/sdn/.running-config'. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Herzig > --- > src/PVE/Network/SDN/Zones/SimplePlugin.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Zones/SimplePlugin.pm b/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Zones/SimplePlugin.pm > index 347eee9..d922035 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Zones/SimplePlugin.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/Network/SDN/Zones/SimplePlugin.pm > @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ sub generate_sdn_config { > my @iface_config = (); > > my $address = {}; > - my $subnets = PVE::Network::SDN::Vnets::get_subnets($vnetid, 1); > + my $subnets = PVE::Network::SDN::Vnets::get_subnets_with_config($vnetid, $subnet_cfg); > > my $ipv4 = undef; > my $ipv6 = undef;