[or-cvs] r13644: resolve one more, and leave two for nick. (in tor/trunk/src: common or)

[arma at seul.org]

Author: arma
Date: 2008-02-21 00:53:50 -0500 (Thu, 21 Feb 2008)
New Revision: 13644

Modified:
   tor/trunk/src/common/tortls.c
   tor/trunk/src/or/connection.c
   tor/trunk/src/or/dns.c
Log:
resolve one more, and leave two for nick.


Modified: tor/trunk/src/common/tortls.c
===================================================================
--- tor/trunk/src/common/tortls.c	2008-02-21 05:51:09 UTC (rev 13643)
+++ tor/trunk/src/common/tortls.c	2008-02-21 05:53:50 UTC (rev 13644)
@@ -285,7 +285,8 @@
       log(severity, LD_NET, "TLS error: Zero return");
       tls_log_errors(tls, severity, doing);
       /* XXXX020rc Actually, a 'zero return' error has a pretty specific
-       * meaning: the connection has been closed cleanly.  */
+       * meaning: the connection has been closed cleanly. -NM
+       * Great. Do something smart here then. :) -RD */
       return TOR_TLS_ERROR_MISC;
     default:
       tls_log_errors(tls, severity, doing);

Modified: tor/trunk/src/or/connection.c
===================================================================
--- tor/trunk/src/or/connection.c	2008-02-21 05:51:09 UTC (rev 13643)
+++ tor/trunk/src/or/connection.c	2008-02-21 05:53:50 UTC (rev 13644)
@@ -1861,7 +1861,8 @@
      * we need to invoke the appropriate callbacks ourself. */
     connection_t *linked = conn->linked_conn;
     /* XXXX020rc Do we need to ensure that this stuff is called even if
-     * conn dies in a way that causes us to return -1 earlier? */
+     * conn dies in a way that causes us to return -1 earlier? -NM
+     * No idea. -RD */
 
     if (n_read) {
       /* Probably a no-op, but hey. */

Modified: tor/trunk/src/or/dns.c
===================================================================
--- tor/trunk/src/or/dns.c	2008-02-21 05:51:09 UTC (rev 13643)
+++ tor/trunk/src/or/dns.c	2008-02-21 05:53:50 UTC (rev 13644)
@@ -592,6 +592,8 @@
         // main.c. -NM
         // "<armadev> If that's true, there are other bugs around, where we
         //  don't check if it's marked, and will end up double-freeing."
+        // On the other hand, I don't know of any actual bugs here, so this
+        // shouldn't be holding up the rc. -RD
       }
       break;
     default: