💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: write chainstate to disk every hour":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30611#discussion_r2070174653)
> before this code move, the writes happened "roughly an hour after start or the last write was scheduled", but after this change "roughly an hour after start or the last write finished"

I believe that was the intention of this change (to me at least, not sure if @achow101 had something else in mind).

Very long flushes on slow disks could take over an hour (hopefully not anymore when this is merged), so that would schedule the next flush immediately. Lengthy flushes would schedule next flushes
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "policy: allow more than one OP_RETURN outputs per tx":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32381#issuecomment-2844690315)
These changes caught many people off guard, and the perceived urgency understandably triggered strong reactions.
For proposals this contentious, it helps to start with an educational phase: GitHub issues, blog posts, podcasts, conference talks, and perhaps even a draft BIP, so the rationale is clear and both positions are properly steel-manned before opening a PR (ideally only after the subject has become mundane).
Without that groundwork, it is easy to understand why some view the process as
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "validation: write chainstate to disk every hour":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30611#discussion_r2070180650)
Yes, agree, just noted that this introduces a drift - which, as you also pointed out, makes sense.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "policy: allow more than one OP_RETURN outputs per tx":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32381#issuecomment-2844699289)
@l0rinc there's a similar proposal on the mailinglist: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/ni6KOcP4nfh6qeB7hEprfzZJuOtBTK6g7rv1L3IRa2TIXq3XUX-7MWGPCHbBATaxOdgbzEQsZmJhId5a4BkGmRabCxSsN24JGEiR4r67D9Y=@pm.me/

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343#issuecomment-2844704124)
@laanwj can you add some testing hints to the PR description? E.g. is there a way to deliberately trigger the potential bug that this fixes?

🤔 janb84 reviewed a pull request: "mining: rename gbt_force and gbt_force_name"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32386#pullrequestreview-2809667848)
ACK [0750249](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0750249289c092fc8e2e29669fec73a58b873767)

The rename of the variables results in less confusion of the intention of the code. And the extra comment explaining the workings of the ! prefix helps to clarify intentions/code even further.

📝 vasild opened a pull request: "net: make m_nodes_mutex non-recursive"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32394)
The only case of a recursive lock was a nested `ForNode()` call to trim
the size of `lNodesAnnouncingHeaderAndIDs` to `<= 3`. This need not be
nested, so take it out.

Before:
```
// we know we will push one new element at the back
if (size >= 3) pop from front
push at the back
```

After:
```
// maybe push at the back
if (size > 3) pop from the front
```

`lNodesAnnouncingHeaderAndIDs` is protected by `cs_main` which is locked
during the entire operation.

Partially resolves
...

💬 laanwj commented on pull request "common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343#issuecomment-2844721484)
> [@laanwj can you add some testing hints to the PR description? E.g. is there a way to deliberately trigger the potential bug that this fixes?

Sure: The simplest way to see if everything properly gets closed is to list `/proc/self/fd` at the beginning in the signer, as in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343#issuecomment-2830252505 .

Alternatively, if you really want to create a bug, you could actively try to mess around with file descriptors that are already open at the start o
...

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: improve the interface around FindNode() and avoid a recursive mutex lock":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32326#issuecomment-2844725476)
Made `m_nodes_mutex` non-recursive in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32394 which is this PR + one more commit.

💬 saikiran57 commented on pull request "Added rescan option for import descriptors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31668#discussion_r2070201366)
Could you please check updated test cases.

💬 willcl-ark commented on issue "test: interface_usdt_net.py failure under --valgrind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32374#issuecomment-2844745010)
I was not able to get this to reproduce using any of the sanitizers.

Connecting with `gdb`, shows all pointers and variables as valid at the callsite. I agree that `ConnectionTypeAsString` seems the natural culprit as it returns a temporary string, but even patching that to return `const *char`,still saw `SIGTRAP` raised.

Stepping through the tracepoint saw it execute without error, so it does seem to be a race/lifetime issue, but not really too sure where else to go from here.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: replace manual reference counting of CNode with shared_ptr":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32015#issuecomment-2844755692)
`15cc989538...8b93e0894f`: fix CI clang-tidy

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359#issuecomment-2844766695)
ACK 47e713ea5a96d3bb2ddd64c8a87607e5ccea8c72

🤔 sipa reviewed a pull request: "crypto: Use secure_allocator for `AES256_ctx`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31774#pullrequestreview-2809732175)
utACK 591764f6170d6f74d7eebb5fec1cbf5b912098a4, just coding style nits

💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: Use secure_allocator for `AES256_ctx`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31774#discussion_r2070233390)
Coding style nit: `} else {`.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "crypto: Use secure_allocator for `AES256_ctx`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31774#discussion_r2070235644)
Coding style nit: space after `if`.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: test MAX_SCRIPT_SIZE for block validity":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32304#issuecomment-2844817333)
@Christewart that's a different rule, if you add a test PR and it's not already covered I'll ack it!

🤔 Bonobirho99 reviewed a pull request: "net: make m_nodes_mutex non-recursive"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32394#pullrequestreview-2809778055)
- [ ] @smola 

# the solution SIDRA cap market on Mainn list auditor internal server it is maljefayri ceo

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#issuecomment-2844850180)
ACK 1c0d89358e12fc871e99c8304d5cb50965cf7b9d

🌲 🪚

👍 Sjors approved a pull request: "Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28710#pullrequestreview-2809792896)
ACK 1c0d89358e12fc871e99c8304d5cb50965cf7b9d 🌲 🪚