💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: write functional test results to csv":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291#issuecomment-2173355681)
> tACK [ad06e68](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291/commits/ad06e68399da71c615db0dbf5304d0cd46bc1f40)

Thanks for the review @rkrux!

🤔 marcofleon reviewed a pull request: "test: write functional test results to csv"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291#pullrequestreview-2122866226)
Good idea, tested ACK ad06e68399da71c615db0dbf5304d0cd46bc1f40

💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "test: write functional test results to csv":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291#issuecomment-2173359913)
> Good idea, tested ACK [ad06e68](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/ad06e68399da71c615db0dbf5304d0cd46bc1f40)

Thanks for reviewing/testing @marcofleon!

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: write functional test results to csv":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30291#discussion_r1642802719)
I see, makes sense to have that discussion separate from this.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "test: expand LimitOrphan and EraseForPeer coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30082#discussion_r1642824589)
Oh timeout as in expiration of the orphans. I assumed it referred to some kind of timeout of the insertion operation.
Makes sense to me now, thanks @glozow.

👍 vasild approved a pull request: "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#pullrequestreview-2122762881)
ACK 0e0c422aedd4009ab34eca127e4904d15e81f5be

Changes like this are inherently difficult to review:

One has to check all variables protected by `cs_main` and ensure that none of them are required to be in sync with the ones that are removed from `cs_main` protection like `m_txrequest`.

Also, one has to check that all mutexes locked before the new one are never locked after the new one anywhere else in the code and that mutexes locked after the new one are never locked before it anywhere
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1642728827)
Since now `cs_main` need not be held when accessing `m_txrequest` better not hold it. For clarity and performance.

```diff
{
LOCK(cs_main); // For m_node_states
m_node_states.emplace_hint(m_node_states.end(), std::piecewise_construct, std::forward_as_tuple(nodeid), std::forward_as_tuple(node.IsInboundConn()));
+ }
+ {
LOCK(m_tx_download_mutex);
assert(m_txrequest.Count(nodeid) == 0);
}

💬 vasild commented on pull request "locks: introduce mutex for tx download, flush rejection filters on UpdatedBlockTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30111#discussion_r1642792214)
Should `s/invalid/valid`?

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#issuecomment-2173431291)
Tested faacd264417bd7f3f08c5ff497458030b3a54fbc on Intel macOS 13.6.7, FreeBSD 13.2, Windows and Ubuntu 24.04.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: expand LimitOrphan and EraseForPeer coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30082#discussion_r1642862717)
I'm switching the word to "stored" to be clearer

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: expand LimitOrphan and EraseForPeer coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30082#discussion_r1642862845)
good point, I added an assert to make it clear its larger, since I think that's the assertion we really want

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: expand LimitOrphan and EraseForPeer coverage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30082#discussion_r1642862912)
considering this resolved

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1642751240)
a8818568a44e02c0346ef37cde9155191f8b3df1: `__FreeBSD_version` can be lowered to `1302000` as per the comment (or `1302001` which I tested on). Although you need `kldload /boot/kernel/netlink.ko`.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1642882599)
3fdc97a2bf7d1ec774d2ffa00502188158c64724: I don't know why this was here in the first place, seems fine to drop.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1642879959)
3fdc97a2bf7d1ec774d2ffa00502188158c64724: this line could be moved to the `miniupnpc` section above:

```
Note: UPnP support will be compiled in, but disabled by default.
```

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1642892799)
57e23f3b4d9cc5bdba421e47def9f3b2335d4cfb: nit, no need to drop this

👍 Sjors approved a pull request: "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#pullrequestreview-2122801091)
tACK faacd264417bd7f3f08c5ff497458030b3a54fbc

Tested on Intel macOS 13.6.7, FreeBSD 13.2, Windows and Ubuntu 24.04.

💬 ryanofsky commented on issue "RFC: Assumeutxo and large forks and reorgs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30288#issuecomment-2173587759)
> > If I can summarize and clarify, neither of you think the current behavior of locking in snapshot block, and temporarily refusing to consider chains that don't include it is a good idea?
>
> I'm not sure I'm following this point exactly: my recollection is that the current observable behavior in this scenario would be to crash [and ...] apart from the terrible UX, this is essentially the right behavior

Whether a node ignores chains that have the most work and don't include the snapshot
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Ephemeral Anchors, take 2":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30239#issuecomment-2173636274)
rebased due to s/nVersion/version/ change for transactions causing a silent merge conflict

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Check snapshot base block is not in invalid chain":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1642951609)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30267#discussion_r1638706909

> Some checks are within `ActivateSnapshot()`, others, like the added one, are in the rpc code (which means that they can't be covered in unit tests for that function). Do you know if there is a reason for that?

I think it this is just a mistake, and it makes the checks less reliable because they are done without keeping cs_main locked. I suggested fixing this before in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27596#di
...