mirror of
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
synced 2026-02-01 11:11:22 +00:00
80a699fda9
693414d27181cf967f787a2ca72344e52c58c7f0 node/ifaces: ChainImpl: Use an accessor for ChainMan (Carl Dong) 98c4e252f0d09bebb2e4ad3289407459c2cda5d5 node/ifaces: NodeImpl: Use an accessor for ChainMan (Carl Dong) 7e8b5ee814b0b8c34acb20637ed4fc988ccba555 validation: Make BlockManager::LookupBlockIndex const (Carl Dong) 88aead263c61d86e5f836028f517cfbf2a575498 node: Avoid potential UB by asserting assumptions (Carl Dong) 1dd8ed7a8491e51b76eeb236b15b794d9254f674 net_processing: Move comments to declarations (Carl Dong) 07156eb387ea580be5e2ce4a1744992ce7575903 node/coinstats: Replace #include with fwd-declaration (Carl Dong) 7b8e976cd5ac78a22f1be2b2fed8562c693af5d9 miner: Add chainstate member to BlockAssembler (Carl Dong) e62067e7bcad5a559899afff2e4a8e8b7e9f4301 Revert "miner: Pass in chainstate to BlockAssembler::CreateNewBlock" (Carl Dong) eede0647b06b6009080c4e536a2705e911d6ee19 Revert "scripted-diff: Invoke CreateNewBlock with chainstate" (Carl Dong) 0c1b2bc549aec77b247f0103652d883227841ac5 Revert "miner: Remove old CreateNewBlock w/o chainstate param" (Carl Dong) Pull request description: Chronological history of this changeset: 1. Bundle 4 (#21270) got merged 2. Posthumous reviews were posted 3. These changes were prepended in bundle 5 4. More reviews were added in bundle 5 5. Someone suggested that we split the prepended changes up to another PR 6. This is that PR In the future, I will just do posthumous review changes in another PR instead. I apologize for the confusion. Addresses posthumous reviews on bundle 4: - From jnewbery: - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#issuecomment-796738048 - I didn't fix this one, but I added a `TODO` comment so that we don't lost track of it - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#discussion_r592291225 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#discussion_r592296942 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#discussion_r592299738 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#discussion_r592301704 - From MarcoFalke: - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#discussion_r593096212 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#discussion_r593097032 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#discussion_r593097867 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21270#discussion_r593100570 Addresses reviews on bundle 5: - Checking chainman existence before locking cs_main - MarcoFalke - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r596601776 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r596601876 - Appropriate locking, usage of chainman, and control flow in `src/node/interfaces.cpp` - MarcoFalke - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r596601383 - jnewbery - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r597029360 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r597029921 - ryanofsky - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r597163828 - Style/comment formatting changes - jnewbery - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r597026552 - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r597027186 - Making LookupBlockIndex const - jnewbery - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21391#discussion_r597035062 ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: review ACK 693414d27181cf967f787a2ca72344e52c58c7f0 🛐 ryanofsky: Code review ACK 693414d27181cf967f787a2ca72344e52c58c7f0. I reviewed this previously as part of #21391. I am a fan of the increasingly complicated bundle numbering, and kind of hope there in the next round there is some way we can get bundles 5.333333 and 5.666667! jamesob: ACK 693414d27181cf967f787a2ca72344e52c58c7f0 ([`jamesob/ackr/21525.1.dongcarl.bundle_4_5_n_followup_f`](https://github.com/jamesob/bitcoin/tree/ackr/21525.1.dongcarl.bundle_4_5_n_followup_f)) Tree-SHA512: 9bdc199f70400d01764e1bd03c25bdb6cff26dcef60e4ca3b649baf8d017a2dfc1f058099067962b4b6ccd32d078002b1389d733039f4c337558cb70324c0ee3