Page MenuHomePhabricator

Move shared qt/bitcoind initialization steps to shared functions.

Authored by schancel on Nov 25 2018, 23:24.


Group Reviewers
Restricted Project

Move shared initialization steps to their own functions. We eventually would like as
shared an initialization as possible so we can ensure that we can de-globalize
items such as the mempool.

Test Plan
make check

Diff Detail

rABC Bitcoin ABC
Lint OK
No Unit Test Coverage
Build Status
Buildable 4132
Build 6335: Bitcoin ABC Buildbot (legacy)
Build 6334: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

schancel created this revision.Nov 25 2018, 23:24
Herald added a reviewer: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptNov 25 2018, 23:24
Fabien added a subscriber: Fabien.Nov 26 2018, 11:53
Fabien added inline comments.
178 ↗(On Diff #6098)

I don't know what the reason is for this comment, but the changes break this assumption.
Did you look at the impact of moving the data dir lock before deamonization ?

schancel marked an inline comment as done.Nov 26 2018, 18:32
schancel added inline comments.
178 ↗(On Diff #6098)

I don't see how this matters at all. deamonization does a double fork, and will inherit the lock.

schancel updated this revision to Diff 6107.Nov 26 2018, 19:45

Fix locking behavior when daemonizing

Fabien added inline comments.Nov 26 2018, 20:31
169 ↗(On Diff #6107)

You may leave this block unchanged, I see no value it these changes. I you want to fix daemonization => daemonizing, please also refactor the other comments in order to have them consistent.

1763 ↗(On Diff #6107)

This should also be removed ?

schancel updated this revision to Diff 6114.Nov 26 2018, 21:22
schancel marked 2 inline comments as done.

Fix comment

jasonbcox requested changes to this revision.Nov 26 2018, 21:25
jasonbcox added a subscriber: jasonbcox.

I have a number of backports in my pipeline that touch this code. Please hold this diff until those are completed.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Nov 26 2018, 21:25
schancel requested review of this revision.Mar 9 2019, 21:26

@jasonbcox Are your backports done? If not, this is a very small change to rebase onto.

Unless there is a larger plan here, this is just moving away from core without any clear benefit.

jasonbcox requested changes to this revision.Mar 20 2019, 01:33

This directly conflicts with T417. I don't think this change is worth it.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mar 20 2019, 01:33
schancel abandoned this revision.Mar 23 2019, 03:02