Remove fixed xxx020s; downgrade unfixed ones.

(The unfixed ones are being downgraded to regular XXXs mainly on the rationale that they don't seem to be exploding Tor, and they were apparently not showstoppers for 0.2.0.x-final.)

svn:r17682

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/src/or/connection.c b/src/or/connection.c
index c540dbf311..7090e9135b 100644
--- a/src/or/connection.c
+++ b/src/or/connection.c
@@ -1990,16 +1990,6 @@ loop_again:
     /* The other side's handle_write will never actually get called, so
      * we need to invoke the appropriate callbacks ourself. */
     connection_t *linked = conn->linked_conn;
-    /* XXXX020 Do we need to ensure that this stuff is called even if
-     * conn dies in a way that causes us to return -1 earlier? -NM
-     * No idea. -RD */
-    /* Actually, I'm pretty sure not.  The big things here are to
-     * tell the linked connection, "yes, you wrote some stuff!" so that
-     * it can succeed as a appropriate.  But if this side of the link
-     * returned -1, then it couldn't process the data it got.  That's
-     * fairly rare, and doesn't really count as "success" for the other
-     * side. -NM
-     */
 
     if (n_read) {
       /* Probably a no-op, but hey. */
@@ -2043,7 +2033,7 @@ connection_read_to_buf(connection_t *conn, int *max_to_read, int *socket_error)
 
   if (at_most == -1) { /* we need to initialize it */
     /* how many bytes are we allowed to read? */
-    /* XXXX020 too many calls to time(). Do they hurt? */
+    /* XXXX too many calls to time(). Do they hurt? */
     at_most = connection_bucket_read_limit(conn, time(NULL));
   }