summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/or/circuituse.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorNick Mathewson <nickm@torproject.org>2016-05-30 16:18:16 -0400
committerNick Mathewson <nickm@torproject.org>2016-05-30 16:18:16 -0400
commit4f1a04ff9c74456c03ac67adb7ae780e4e77c71e (patch)
treea7dde276330e86e166945af726d1e4d325f18a67 /src/or/circuituse.c
parentce31db4326599c3f86307fca5286349150cb871e (diff)
downloadtor-4f1a04ff9c74456c03ac67adb7ae780e4e77c71e.tar.gz
tor-4f1a04ff9c74456c03ac67adb7ae780e4e77c71e.zip
Replace nearly all XXX0vv comments with smarter ones
So, back long ago, XXX012 meant, "before Tor 0.1.2 is released, we had better revisit this comment and fix it!" But we have a huge pile of such comments accumulated for a large number of released versions! Not cool. So, here's what I tried to do: * 0.2.9 and 0.2.8 are retained, since those are not yet released. * XXX+ or XXX++ or XXX++++ or whatever means, "This one looks quite important!" * The others, after one-by-one examination, are downgraded to plain old XXX. Which doesn't mean they aren't a problem -- just that they cannot possibly be a release-blocking problem.
Diffstat (limited to 'src/or/circuituse.c')
-rw-r--r--src/or/circuituse.c12
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/src/or/circuituse.c b/src/or/circuituse.c
index 0d7e03be59..d2c05bd66e 100644
--- a/src/or/circuituse.c
+++ b/src/or/circuituse.c
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ circuit_is_better(const origin_circuit_t *oa, const origin_circuit_t *ob,
timercmp(&a->timestamp_began, &b->timestamp_began, OP_GT))
return 1;
if (ob->build_state->is_internal)
- /* XXX023 what the heck is this internal thing doing here. I
+ /* XXXX++ what the heck is this internal thing doing here. I
* think we can get rid of it. circuit_is_acceptable() already
* makes sure that is_internal is exactly what we need it to
* be. -RD */
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ circuit_is_better(const origin_circuit_t *oa, const origin_circuit_t *ob,
break;
}
- /* XXXX023 Maybe this check should get a higher priority to avoid
+ /* XXXX Maybe this check should get a higher priority to avoid
* using up circuits too rapidly. */
a_bits = connection_edge_update_circuit_isolation(conn,
@@ -1936,8 +1936,8 @@ circuit_get_open_circ_or_launch(entry_connection_t *conn,
return -1;
}
} else {
- /* XXXX024 Duplicates checks in connection_ap_handshake_attach_circuit:
- * refactor into a single function? */
+ /* XXXX Duplicates checks in connection_ap_handshake_attach_circuit:
+ * refactor into a single function. */
const node_t *node = node_get_by_nickname(conn->chosen_exit_name, 1);
int opt = conn->chosen_exit_optional;
if (node && !connection_ap_can_use_exit(conn, node)) {
@@ -2416,7 +2416,7 @@ connection_ap_handshake_attach_circuit(entry_connection_t *conn)
/* find the circuit that we should use, if there is one. */
retval = circuit_get_open_circ_or_launch(
conn, CIRCUIT_PURPOSE_C_GENERAL, &circ);
- if (retval < 1) // XXX023 if we totally fail, this still returns 0 -RD
+ if (retval < 1) // XXXX++ if we totally fail, this still returns 0 -RD
return retval;
log_debug(LD_APP|LD_CIRC,
@@ -2591,7 +2591,7 @@ mark_circuit_unusable_for_new_conns(origin_circuit_t *circ)
const or_options_t *options = get_options();
tor_assert(circ);
- /* XXXX025 This is a kludge; we're only keeping it around in case there's
+ /* XXXX This is a kludge; we're only keeping it around in case there's
* something that doesn't check unusable_for_new_conns, and to avoid
* deeper refactoring of our expiration logic. */
if (! circ->base_.timestamp_dirty)