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 E153872576 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:01:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D1B848EA0 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:01:10 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B34F28E8C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:01:09 +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 7F52A4402F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:01:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <f49c0ba6-9e6d-fcfc-ed4a-6d614e597644@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:01:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/90.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> References: <20210412131438.15859-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20210412131438.15859-3-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20210412131438.15859-3-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.897 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 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: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH common 2/2] inotify: read_interfaces: add vlan-id and vlan-raw-device on dot notation vlan interfaces 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: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:01:40 -0000 On 12.04.21 15:14, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > Setting the vlan-id and vlan-raw-device value for vlan devices that > follow the dot notaton (interface.vlan) aligns how dot notation vlan > devices and vlan devices that use the explicit vlan-id and > vlan-raw-device options, available with ifupdown2, are represented in > API return values. > > Previously the type for both was 'vlan' but only the latter showed more > details. > > Setting these values here should not have any influence on how the > interfaces file is being written as these two values are already > filtered in __write_etc_network_interfaces for dot notation devices. > > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> > --- > src/PVE/INotify.pm | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > applied, thanks! Added a small followup to also detect the ID for the "vlanX" variant we allow.