Complete the move from CCriticalSection to identical RecursiveMutex (both are AnnotatedMixin<std::recursive_mutex>) using a scripted-diff. Remove CCriticalSection.
Rationale: RecursiveMutex is more descriptive than CCriticalSection. The use of two different ways to refer to the same lock type might be somewhat confusing for new contributors.
Context: RecursiveMutex was introduced in #14963 which was merged back in January.
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
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.
FWIW: I've verified that a disassembly of the bitcoind binary built on a Ubuntu 18.04 machine with this patch applied is identical to a disassembly of the bitcoind binary built against master (as expected).
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
git grep -l "CCriticalSection" ":(exclude)src/sync.h" | xargs sed -i "s/CCriticalSection/RecursiveMutex/g"
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
Thank you for your contribution. While this stylistic change makes sense on its own, it comes at a cost and risk for the project as a whole. The weak motivation for the change does not justify the burden that it places on the project. A burden could be any of the following:
For more information about refactoring changes and stylistic cleanup, see
Generally, if the style is not mentioned nor enforced by the developer notes, we leave it up to the original author to pick whatever fits them best personally and then leave it that way until the line is touched for other reasons.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Personally I ack irrespective of conflicts but I understand the conflicts being a concern here.