utACK. Want to mark ReceivedBlockTransactions static while you're at it?

@TheBlueMatt sure. Should I soft reset the commit and add the new change within a single commit?

Doesnt matter either way, I think.

ACK 25660e9

ACK 25660e9
Added to the list in #7829
If you feel like doing more functions in one go, maybe I can close #10227 (sorry I didn't see this before opening it, you need to "ping @jtimon" to get the promised review faster). Just by equaling it I would be more than happy to close #10227, but it occurs to me that I didn't do an exhaustive search on all the functions in validation.o that could be made static (independently on whether they use CChainParams or Consensus::Params or not). If you do that, I bet not only nobody will complain for increasing the scope of a PR with 3 acks but people will actually praise you (at least I will) for every new function that can be static you find apart from the 3 in #10227.
I think it's also a more interesting and rewarding task than what #7829 proposes alone.

EDIT: or maybe a separated PR for that makes more sense, I'm not sure

@jtimon this was the first time I was looking at a C++ code so my understanding of the language is next to zero. However, the similar pattern all the static functions seem to have is that they're only called within the same file. If that's the case (?) then I'll be able to do it (perhaps in a separate PR as you suggested).

Yes, static functions are only called from the same file. So for searching more functions in validation.cpp that could be static, it's more about grep than about C++ (and as said feel free to copy from #10227 ).
Either way I already acked this PR as it is, but would be happy to review more.

ping @jtimon

Made other methods static (not sure about FILE* OpenDiskFile() and FILE* OpenUndoFile() though).

Also copied #10227 and added parameter chainparams to FlushStateToDisk().

Yeah, it seems OpenDiskFile and OpenUndoFile are only called from validation.cpp and can be static too.

EDIT: also it seems @laanwj added one commit here by mistake.

@jtimon oh, I "accidentally" soft reset my first commit instead of fixingup the last one so everything is in the single commit now. Sorry, I haven't worked with git for quite a long time.

Mhmm, squashing in one commit is fine, what I mean is you also added a commit that doesn't belong here:
"Merge branch 'master' into consensusparams-receivedblocktransactions" 8b23dfd
Here's what you can do to fix this: rebase -i origin/master and remove that commit from the list.

Needs rebase. EDIT: Also, perhaps changing the tittle name now that it does more things?

@jtimon I changed the title.

Before I break anything while rebasing, is the following all that is needed?

git checkout consensusparams-receivedblocktransactions
git rebase master
git checkout master
git merge consensusparams-receivedblocktransactions

Thank you.

what I would usually do:

git checkout consensusparams-receivedblocktransactions
git fetch origin
git rebase -i origin/master
git push jtimon +consensusparams-receivedblocktransactions

Instead of jtimon, you need to use something else pointing to you repository
For example, in my bitcoin./git/config I have (among other things):

[remote "origin"]
	url = github:bitcoin/bitcoin.git
	fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
[remote "jtimon"]
	url = github:jtimon/bitcoin.git
	fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/jtimon/*

Using -i (for interactive) it's not very useful in this case because it is only one commit and the rebase will stop in it for the conflict anyway, but you can try to replace s/pick/edit/ or s/pick/reword/ to experiment with it. You can also use it for squash commits or remove them, I use interactive rebase all the time.

Needs rebase

needs rebase again