From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug  3 16:48:05 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BAF9C16A4CE; Tue,  3 Aug 2004 16:48:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from cathy.bmts.com (cathy.bmts.com [216.183.128.202])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E233643D49; Tue,  3 Aug 2004 16:48:04 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rhempel@bmts.com)
Received: from PC300GL (os-dsl-0228.bmts.com [216.183.152.229])
	by cathy.bmts.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i73GmHIo008649;
	Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:48:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Ralph Hempel" <rhempel@bmts.com>
To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:50:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEBIOGHPFFJALBLJBEDCEJDGJAA.rhempel@bmts.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200408031633.I73GXIBP038908@asarian-host.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200
X-bmts-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-bmts-MailScanner-SpamCheck: 
X-MailScanner-From: rhempel@bmts.com
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: One OR MORE of source and destination addresses?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rhempel@bmts.com
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:48:05 -0000


> I just took a look at the code:
> 
>  if (q != NULL) { /* should never occur */
>   if (last_log != time_second) {
>    last_log = time_second;
>    printf("ipfw: install_state: entry already present, done\n");
>   }
>   return 0;
>  }
> 
> What if I just hack the "printf ..." line out of there? Would that 'solve'
> it? I know it's dirty; but would things still work?

I'll jump in here as a software manager and say NO!!!!!

Note, I have no idea if it will still work, but as a professional
programmer, the question raises a number of issues :-)

1. First of all, the original programmer took time to comment
   this line:

    if (q != NULL) { /* should never occur */

   OK. There's no indication WHY it should never occur, but still, the comment
   is there.

2. By adding this line: 

    if (last_log != time_second) {

   He's limiting the printed errors to one every second, so you
   are not beeing flooded with as many messages as are actually
   ocurring.

   Is last_log used anywhere else?

3. This line:

     return 0;

   will still return 0 if the error occurs, so the program will
   work the same with or without the diagnostic message.

I'd do some more digging and find out exactly WHY this is a "should never
occur case" to be sure that the log is not needed. If you don't print
the log, then why do the test, except to return 0 :-)

Ralph