fix a harmless warn and mark two points where we should

maybe change our approach.


svn:r5352
This commit is contained in:
Roger Dingledine 2005-11-11 17:01:20 +00:00
parent b76f61ee66
commit c074f528c1

View File

@ -2515,13 +2515,17 @@ routers_update_all_from_networkstatus(void)
});
if (n_recent >= 2 && n_listing >= 2) {
/* XXX When we have more than 3 dirservers, these warnings
* might become spurious depending on which combination of
* network-statuses we have. Perhaps we should wait until we
* have tried all of them? -RD */
if (n_valid <= n_recent/2) {
warn(LD_GENERAL, "%d/%d recent directory servers list us as invalid. Please consider sending your identity fingerprint to the tor-ops.",
n_recent-n_valid, n_recent);
have_warned_about_unverified_status = 1;
} else if (n_named <= n_recent/2) {
} else if (!n_named) { // (n_named <= n_recent/2) {
warn(LD_GENERAL, "%d/%d recent directory servers list us as unnamed. Please consider sending your identity fingerprint to the tor-ops.",
n_recent-n_valid, n_recent);
n_recent-n_named, n_recent);
have_warned_about_unverified_status = 1;
}
}
@ -3133,6 +3137,8 @@ update_router_descriptor_downloads(time_t now)
/** Return true iff we have enough networkstatus and router information to
* start building circuits. Right now, this means "at least 2 networkstatus
* documents, and at least 1/4 of expected routers." */
//XXX should consider whether we have enough exiting nodes here.
//and also consider if they're too "old"?
int
router_have_minimum_dir_info(void)
{