💬 hebasto commented on pull request "guix: remove redundant glibc patches":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27670#issuecomment-1557452526)
Post-merge ACK 3cfe366ec35eebfc0dad89ac7a09c32c45c30ea5. Having identical hashes for the merge commit ad7819d2f8abc311996cb6836315413641c2bebf for both `x86_64` and `arm64` build platforms:
```
05f7c42f98bf9fde66d8a6a895d10759f4f47d143a5c2acf87517942586bb1fc guix-build-ad7819d2f8ab/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
e17f6abb7096779d312b703fa287d07e6c25fdae63bb2861dd7bcaad7f9588e0 guix-build-ad7819d2f8ab/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-ad7819d2f8ab-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
98fa
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27670#issuecomment-1557452526)
Post-merge ACK 3cfe366ec35eebfc0dad89ac7a09c32c45c30ea5. Having identical hashes for the merge commit ad7819d2f8abc311996cb6836315413641c2bebf for both `x86_64` and `arm64` build platforms:
```
05f7c42f98bf9fde66d8a6a895d10759f4f47d143a5c2acf87517942586bb1fc guix-build-ad7819d2f8ab/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
e17f6abb7096779d312b703fa287d07e6c25fdae63bb2861dd7bcaad7f9588e0 guix-build-ad7819d2f8ab/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-ad7819d2f8ab-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
98fa
...
💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1557469158)
> Tripling the outgoing bandwidth load for peers selected for hb compact block relay seems concerning; not sure if I'd call it a blocker though.
To be clear, this is only a tripling in the case where where all your peers are roughly equally as fast, and triple of *what* is the most important thing.
The worst case scenario is going to be block after block of stuff we don't have in our mempool, and them being slow to validate, allowing multiple compact blocks to arrive before receiving a res
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1557469158)
> Tripling the outgoing bandwidth load for peers selected for hb compact block relay seems concerning; not sure if I'd call it a blocker though.
To be clear, this is only a tripling in the case where where all your peers are roughly equally as fast, and triple of *what* is the most important thing.
The worst case scenario is going to be block after block of stuff we don't have in our mempool, and them being slow to validate, allowing multiple compact blocks to arrive before receiving a res
...
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "system: use %LOCALAPPDATA% as default datadir on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064#issuecomment-1557479451)
Concept ACK.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064#issuecomment-1557479451)
Concept ACK.
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "system: use %LOCALAPPDATA% as default datadir on windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064#discussion_r1200717358)
Update the PR description:
> we check for the existence of `C:\Users\Username\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin\blocks`
?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27064#discussion_r1200717358)
Update the PR description:
> we check for the existence of `C:\Users\Username\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin\blocks`
?
💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "kernel: Remove interface_ui, util/system from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1557487333)
> > > * Receive a fatal error callback before the parent function has completed
> >
> > The first thing should always happen
>
> I know I sound like a broken record here but... is that a guarantee? If so I think it should be documented.
I think possibly I'm not understanding the question. It seems self-evident that if some kernel function calls the `kernel::Notifications::fatalError` method, that function won't finish executing until the `kernel::Notifications::fatalError` method implem
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1557487333)
> > > * Receive a fatal error callback before the parent function has completed
> >
> > The first thing should always happen
>
> I know I sound like a broken record here but... is that a guarantee? If so I think it should be documented.
I think possibly I'm not understanding the question. It seems self-evident that if some kernel function calls the `kernel::Notifications::fatalError` method, that function won't finish executing until the `kernel::Notifications::fatalError` method implem
...
📝 furszy opened a pull request: "index: prevent race by calling 'CustomInit' prior setting 'synced' flag"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27720)
Decoupled from #27607.
Fixed a potential race condition in master (not possible so far) that could become a actual issue soon.
Where the index's `CustomAppend` method could be called (from `BlockConnected`) before its
`CustomInit` method, causing the index to try to update itself before it is initialized.
This could happen because we set the index `m_synced` flag (which enables `BlockConnected` events)
before calling to the child class init function (`CustomInit`). So, for example, the
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27720)
Decoupled from #27607.
Fixed a potential race condition in master (not possible so far) that could become a actual issue soon.
Where the index's `CustomAppend` method could be called (from `BlockConnected`) before its
`CustomInit` method, causing the index to try to update itself before it is initialized.
This could happen because we set the index `m_synced` flag (which enables `BlockConnected` events)
before calling to the child class init function (`CustomInit`). So, for example, the
...
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Parallel compact block downloads, take 3":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1557536125)
> > Tripling the outgoing bandwidth load for peers selected for hb compact block relay seems concerning; not sure if I'd call it a blocker though.
>
> To be clear, this is only a tripling in the case where where all your peers are roughly equally as fast, and triple of _what_ is the most important thing.
In an "everyone's honest" environment, I think the most likely reason for there to be enough of a delay between `cmpctblock / getblocktxns / blocktxns` that there'll be another `cmpctblock
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27626#issuecomment-1557536125)
> > Tripling the outgoing bandwidth load for peers selected for hb compact block relay seems concerning; not sure if I'd call it a blocker though.
>
> To be clear, this is only a tripling in the case where where all your peers are roughly equally as fast, and triple of _what_ is the most important thing.
In an "everyone's honest" environment, I think the most likely reason for there to be enough of a delay between `cmpctblock / getblocktxns / blocktxns` that there'll be another `cmpctblock
...
💬 furszy commented on pull request "index: improve initialization and pruning violation check":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#issuecomment-1557553941)
Feedback tackled, thanks ryanofsky and mzumzande for your deep review!
This PR now depends on #27720 and #27708.
List of changes since the last review:
* Created #27708 so the post-init shutdown doesn’t introduce any tangible difference for user and tests. (Per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion_r1198184049 discussion).
* Moved the `LoadMempool()` call from the blockstorage import function to init.cpp (per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#issuecomment-1557553941)
Feedback tackled, thanks ryanofsky and mzumzande for your deep review!
This PR now depends on #27720 and #27708.
List of changes since the last review:
* Created #27708 so the post-init shutdown doesn’t introduce any tangible difference for user and tests. (Per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion_r1198184049 discussion).
* Moved the `LoadMempool()` call from the blockstorage import function to init.cpp (per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27607#discussion
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200766163)
For serializing the strings for the prefix, the stream type and client version don't matter so I just didn't use them.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200766163)
For serializing the strings for the prefix, the stream type and client version don't matter so I just didn't use them.
💬 theuni commented on pull request "kernel: Remove interface_ui, util/system from kernel library":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1557558059)
> > I know I sound like a broken record here but... is that a guarantee? If so I think it should be documented.
>
> I think possibly I'm not understanding the question. It seems self-evident that if some kernel function calls the `kernel::Notifications::fatalError` method, that function won't finish executing until the `kernel::Notifications::fatalError` method implementation completes and returns. Function calls in c++ are blocking, so functions don't return until the functions they call ret
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27636#issuecomment-1557558059)
> > I know I sound like a broken record here but... is that a guarantee? If so I think it should be documented.
>
> I think possibly I'm not understanding the question. It seems self-evident that if some kernel function calls the `kernel::Notifications::fatalError` method, that function won't finish executing until the `kernel::Notifications::fatalError` method implementation completes and returns. Function calls in c++ are blocking, so functions don't return until the functions they call ret
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200777487)
I think it's fine to leave it as is.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200777487)
I think it's fine to leave it as is.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200777808)
Adopted these suggestions.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200777808)
Adopted these suggestions.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200778103)
Added the case and squashed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200778103)
Added the case and squashed.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200778268)
Removed
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200778268)
Removed
💬 Bandileds commented on pull request "rpc: add `descriptorprocesspsbt` rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#issuecomment-1557572227)
I love it
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25796#issuecomment-1557572227)
I love it
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200779393)
Added a line in the commit message.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200779393)
Added a line in the commit message.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200783492)
I've changed it to increment unconditionally as mentioned below. Ultimately, `wss` gets removed so I don't think the correctness of this counting particularly matters.
Additionally, the current behavior doesn't use the counts when there are failures, so having it be inaccurate in such cases shouldn't matter.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200783492)
I've changed it to increment unconditionally as mentioned below. Ultimately, `wss` gets removed so I don't think the correctness of this counting particularly matters.
Additionally, the current behavior doesn't use the counts when there are failures, so having it be inaccurate in such cases shouldn't matter.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200784032)
Changed to increment unconditionally.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200784032)
Changed to increment unconditionally.
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200784391)
Done
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200784391)
Done
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "wallet: Load database records in a particular order":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200784861)
Added a comment.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24914#discussion_r1200784861)
Added a comment.