💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: Use same timeout for all index sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27988#issuecomment-1611341497)
Not sure what is happening here, but when testing this commit (rebased on master), on aarch64, `make check` just "dies" in the wallet tests? https://gist.github.com/fanquake/087fdff84b0d5379d94859de47a0e797

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactor: Continue moving application data from CNode to Peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26621#issuecomment-1611345224)
> Needs rebase if still relevant

Rebased

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "guix: Clean up manifest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27811#issuecomment-1611386623)
ACK a51d7abf1e13c532c7acf437c3a65a9511b44987

Guix builds:
```
find guix-build-$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
6edd213a90a043d09da144b99332ab16a320774098d35de28464262b25f260b2 guix-build-a51d7abf1e13/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
1ececa8121d51a5c358e25e1a4b529413faadef5721387005db2b928c05cad3d guix-build-a51d7abf1e13/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a51d7abf1e13-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
fbc1724995b2d9
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Use same timeout for all index sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27988#issuecomment-1611401222)
Ah, sorry that's a bug. Can you check `log_path=${BASE_SCRATCH_DIR}/sanitizer-output/tsan`?

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: Clean up manifest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27811#issuecomment-1611401634)
Guix builds:
```
6edd213a90a043d09da144b99332ab16a320774098d35de28464262b25f260b2 guix-build-a51d7abf1e13/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
1ececa8121d51a5c358e25e1a4b529413faadef5721387005db2b928c05cad3d guix-build-a51d7abf1e13/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a51d7abf1e13-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
fbc1724995b2d9a43c0bccbb3c20e02d115d9aeaecce0792bde46d9fedc0dbe0 guix-build-a51d7abf1e13/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a51d7abf1e13-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
8a9edb553d6e6db1d63
...

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "test: Use same timeout for all index sync":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27988#issuecomment-1611403242)
Anyway, I'd guess it's the bdb upstream data race, so maybe for now try without bdb?

💬 CocolinoFan commented on issue "Finding peers to connect to after -onlynet changes may be problematic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26035#issuecomment-1611404822)
100% agree my node is running for 5 days now on IPv4, i2p, cjdns and Tor.
I have 75 in peers for IPv4 but 0 for the rest.
I can manually add peers for i2p, cjdns and Tor but in my mind it should work like [vasild] said, maintain at least one connection to every available network.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: make startup more efficient":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion_r1245203016)
Yeah. Added 6a0262a4 improving this docs in a separated commit.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: make startup more efficient":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion_r1244419674)
It refers to the `NodeContext` struct. Same as the line that is right above it.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: make startup more efficient":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion_r1245203265)
Done

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: make startup more efficient":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion_r1244446404)
I thought about that initially too, but we have #24230 going into the opposite direction (removing the `CBlockIndex` usages from the `index/` directory).

I think that the best would be to place it inside the chain interface. But let me check how far that goes. If it requires more changes, might be good to leave it for a follow-up to not keep expanding this PR.

💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: make startup more efficient":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#issuecomment-1611418821)
Tackled naming and docs suggestions, thanks mzumsande.

🤔 hebasto reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Rm ShutdownRequested and AbortNode from validation code."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27861#pullrequestreview-1503103864)
ACK 6eb33bd0c21b3e075fbab596351cacafdc947472, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "kernel: Rm ShutdownRequested and AbortNode from validation code.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27861#discussion_r1245218670)
Would it be more safer to move the assertion to the top of the desctuctor's code?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "wallet: bugfix, always use apostrophe for spkm descriptor ID":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27920#issuecomment-1611425177)
What happened to fa2329285c?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Clean up manifest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27811#issuecomment-1611440749)
Guix Build:
```bash
6edd213a90a043d09da144b99332ab16a320774098d35de28464262b25f260b2 guix-build-a51d7abf1e13/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
1ececa8121d51a5c358e25e1a4b529413faadef5721387005db2b928c05cad3d guix-build-a51d7abf1e13/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a51d7abf1e13-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
fbc1724995b2d9a43c0bccbb3c20e02d115d9aeaecce0792bde46d9fedc0dbe0 guix-build-a51d7abf1e13/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-a51d7abf1e13-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
8a9edb553d6e6db1
...

📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "build: pass sanitize flags to instrument libsecp256k1 code"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27991)
secp256k1 functions are now instrumented:
```bash
# objdump --disassemble-symbols=_secp256k1_xonly_pubkey_serialize src/test/fuzz/fuzz | grep sanitizer_cov
100eb5244: 73 5d 01 94 bl 0x100f0c810 <___sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp8>
100eb53f0: cc 5c 01 94 bl 0x100f0c720 <___sanitizer_cov_trace_pc_indir>
100eb5418: c2 5c 01 94 bl 0x100f0c720 <___sanitizer_cov_trace_pc_indir>
100eb5444: b7 5c 01 94 bl 0x100f0c720 <___sanitizer_cov_trace_pc_indir>
```

Not sure if this is the best solutio
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: pass sanitize flags to instrument libsecp256k1 code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27991#issuecomment-1611454453)
Is it guaranteed that sanitizer flags for a C++ compiler are acceptible by a C compiler?

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "index: make startup more efficient":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion_r1245253634)
I'd definitely avoid moving `StartIndexes` into the `interfaces::Chain` class, because because that class is supposed to expose limited node functionality to outside callers like wallets and indexes without giving them access to node internals. It is supposed to be a thin wrapper around node functions and data, not to contain any real functionality itself. Its methods are meant to be called by wallets and indexes, not by node code because it would add an unnecessary layer of indirection, bring i
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: Start with clean env":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27976#issuecomment-1611469491)
Concept ACK