From 0ba2bfeef6a4836dadf88307333806371a611ae1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick Mathewson Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:12:01 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] r14363@31-33-219: nickm | 2008-02-21 11:11:33 -0500 Answer the next-to-last XXX020rc item. svn:r13658 --- src/or/connection.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/or/connection.c b/src/or/connection.c index 891c81a0e7..54edcea73d 100644 --- a/src/or/connection.c +++ b/src/or/connection.c @@ -1860,9 +1860,16 @@ 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; - /* XXXX020rc Do we need to ensure that this stuff is called even if + /* 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. */