Skip to content

llmq: Some refactoring in CChainLocksHandler::ProcessNewChainLock #3976

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
PastaPastaPasta merged 4 commits into from
Feb 14, 2021
Merged

llmq: Some refactoring in CChainLocksHandler::ProcessNewChainLock #3976

PastaPastaPasta merged 4 commits into from
Feb 14, 2021

Conversation

@xdustinface
Copy link

@xdustinface xdustinface commented Feb 1, 2021

No description provided.

@xdustinface xdustinface added this to the 17 milestone Feb 1, 2021
@UdjinM6
Copy link

UdjinM6 commented Feb 3, 2021

cc1b476 really made me think if it actually makes any sense to have both (!bestChainLock.IsNull() && clsig.nHeight <= bestChainLock.nHeight) and InternalHasConflictingChainLock here at all (#3978 is a side effect of that 🙂 ) cause it seems like InternalHasConflictingChainLock will always be false in this combination, no?

@UdjinM6
Copy link

UdjinM6 commented Feb 8, 2021

Ping 👀 Any thoughts on dropping InternalHasConflictingChainLock part instead of cc1b476?

@xdustinface xdustinface force-pushed the pr-llmq-refactor-processnewchainlock branch from b6a37e3 to 75ede8a Compare February 9, 2021 22:49
@xdustinface
Copy link
Author

xdustinface commented Feb 9, 2021

@UdjinM6 Sorry for the late reply, i was just too deep into other stuff the last week and i just didn't find time in my mind to think about this and #3978 🙈 But i agree, it makes sense to drop it 👍 Added a51875f instead of cc1b476!

UdjinM6
UdjinM6 approved these changes Feb 10, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@PastaPastaPasta
Copy link
Member

PastaPastaPasta commented Feb 11, 2021

Can you explain a51875f more? why are we dropping that?

@xdustinface
Copy link
Author

xdustinface commented Feb 11, 2021

why are we dropping that?

See #3976 (comment)

dash/src/llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp

Line 634 in a51875f

if (nHeight > bestChainLockBlockIndex->nHeight) {
will always trigger in this case because we already make sure before that its higher than best chainlock height

dash/src/llmq/quorums_chainlocks.cpp

Line 120 in a51875f

if (!bestChainLock.IsNull() && clsig.nHeight <= bestChainLock.nHeight) {

PastaPastaPasta
PastaPastaPasta approved these changes Feb 14, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit 6ec8b9a into dashpay:develop Feb 14, 2021
@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 mentioned this pull request Feb 15, 2021
Merged
gades pushed a commit to cosanta/cosanta-core that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2022
@xdustinface @gades
llmq: Some refactoring in CChainLocksHandler::ProcessNewChainLock (da…
99cba71 
…shpay#3976)

* llmq: Drop InternalHasConflictingChainLock in ProcessNewChainLock

* llmq: Directly use clsig.blockHash instead of copying it into msgHash

* llmq: Reuse CInv(MSG_CLSIG, hash)

* llmq: Add const in two places
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 UdjinM6 approved these changes

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

17

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@xdustinface @UdjinM6 @PastaPastaPasta