rebase from master

linting

lock frame reduced

rebased

add whitespace

revert not related with PR code

rebased from master

rebased from master

rebase from master

rebase from master

braces

In D4803#118361, @deadalnix wrote:

This clearly includes a lot of code that isn't in the original PR. Where does the clocking mechanism changes come from?

rebase

Call FinalizeBlockAndInvalidate without cs_main held

Remove code that removes from setBlockIndexCandidates as FindMostWorkChain() is in charge of it.

fixes suggested

fixes tests

applying changes to UnwindBlock

rebasing

rebasing

rebased

In D4758#115570, @markblundeberg wrote:

In D4758#115130, @fpelliccioni wrote:

In D4758#115041, @markblundeberg wrote:

Something seems a bit off here -- note that ABC has renamed the 'inner' InvalidateBlock to UnwindBlock in D1952 (not sure why). I think you might be putting the lock in the wrong place, and it should rather go on UnwindBlock.

I didn't want to change the semantics of UnwindBlock because this function is used by ParkBlock.
In any case, I will create another Diff to change ParkBlock.

Hmm, however, in the original PR there will get many many more changes made to UnwindBlock (called InvalidateBlock in Core) -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15402/files#diff-24efdb00bfbe56b140fb006b562cc70bL2787 . The essence of the PR is that UnwindBlock will only take short-term locks during its execution. If we start off like this then it seems none of the following commits will make sense.

In D4758#115041, @markblundeberg wrote:

Something seems a bit off here -- note that ABC has renamed the 'inner' InvalidateBlock to UnwindBlock in D1952 (not sure why). I think you might be putting the lock in the wrong place, and it should rather go on UnwindBlock.

In D4757#115032, @markblundeberg wrote:

Heh, unfortunate title for this diff now that RewindBlockIndex is gone :-D

remove empty line

It seems that removal of the RewindBlockIndex declaration is missing (src/validation.h).

Due to D4728

Due to D4728

Due to D4728

In D4669#114633, @deadalnix wrote:

As @markblundeberg pointed, this looks like a bunch of dead code. Can you look at D4728 and see what that means for this backport?

Not really requesting changes, requesting change to get this back on your queue.

included climits header

included cstdint header

added 8-bit byte assumtion

added linting exclusion

fixed comments

In D4731#114006, @jasonbcox wrote:

The change doesn't appear to match the description. Did you get bit by the linter?

included type_traits header