The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

• #30141 (kernel: De-globalize validation caches by TheCharlatan)
• #26022 (Add util::ResultPtr class by ryanofsky)
• #25722 (refactor: Use util::Result class for wallet loading by ryanofsky)
• #25665 (refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages by ryanofsky)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

ping @TheCharlatan

I've got this on a branch that I'll PR as soon as #30141 is merged: https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/kernelRmGlobals/ . I try to keep the open PRs limited to get more focused review.

I've got this on a branch that I'll PR as soon as #30141 is merged: https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/commits/kernelRmGlobals/ . I try to keep the open PRs limited to get more focused review.

Aha, I see.

I think this one is simple and self-contained enough to go in on its own unless you're opposed.

I'll ping you on these in the future to make sure you don't already have them teed up.

Also, concept ACK on your next branch. Will give #30141 a final review and ACK to keep things moving.

Re-ACK f1478c0

I'll ping you on these in the future to make sure you don't already have them teed up.

No worries, it's nice to see contributions from more developers, and if there is some redundant work every now and then, it just means it was reviewed already :)

lgtm, iiuc you'd want #30141 merged before this one?

Re #30344 (comment)

lgtm, iiuc you'd want #30141 merged before this one?

Mmh, I don't think this was said anywhere? Looks like the two are not really related either.

Re #30344 (comment)

lgtm, iiuc you'd want #30141 merged before this one?

Mmh, I don't think this was said anywhere? Looks like the two are not really related either.

It seems they have a couple acks and conflict with each other? Was taking a guess based on #30344 (comment)

@glozow We both noticed this independently. @TheCharlatan Had it queued up as part of his next batch of changes (not yet PR'd), but I didn't know that when I PR'd this one. He's since agreed that it makes sense to merge this on its own.

#30141 is unrelated, he's just waiting for that to be merged before PR'ing his next batch of kernel changes.

#30141 is unrelated, he's just waiting for that to be merged before PR'ing his next batch of kernel changes.

I can see that they aren't related, just trying to clarify which one to merge first because the PRs conflict. I figured this would be an ok place to ask that since it's the same people. Apologies, I wasn't trying to imply that they're related at all, my previous comment was to provide an explanation for why I was asking which one to prioritize.

ACK f1478c0

Ported to the CMake-based build system in hebasto#264.