Skip to content
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.

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

vote: add ephemeral bankhash and slot to TowerSync #2967

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AshwinSekar
Copy link

@AshwinSekar AshwinSekar commented Sep 24, 2024

Problem

Asynchronous execution needs to track the ephemeral bank hash separately from the latest replayed bank hash. Additionally we need a slot # to now go with the bank hash. This requires a new vote ix format.

Summary of Changes

Since we are already in the midst of a vote ix upgrade for block_id, add this now to avoid having to go through another migration.

Copy link

mergify bot commented Sep 24, 2024

The Firedancer team maintains a line-for-line reimplementation of the
native programs, and until native programs are moved to BPF, those
implementations must exactly match their Agave counterparts.
If this PR represents a change to a native program implementation (not
tests), please include a reviewer from the Firedancer team. And please
keep refactors to a minimum.

@AshwinSekar AshwinSekar force-pushed the tower-sync-slot branch 3 times, most recently from 18f9f0d to ae5cbb6 Compare September 24, 2024 09:21
@@ -788,7 +788,7 @@ pub mod remove_rounding_in_fee_calculation {
}

pub mod enable_tower_sync_ix {
solana_program::declare_id!("tSynMCspg4xFiCj1v3TDb4c7crMR5tSBhLz4sF7rrNA");
Copy link
Author

@AshwinSekar AshwinSekar Sep 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

feature is rekeyed to avoid any accidental activation before this is released

Copy link

@wen-coding wen-coding left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for adding this!

sdk/program/src/vote/state/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
sdk/program/src/vote/state/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
sdk/program/src/vote/state/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lheeger-jump
Copy link

Should we collab on the SIMD first before getting too dug in on implementation details?

@AshwinSekar
Copy link
Author

Should we collab on the SIMD first before getting too dug in on implementation details?

I'm fine with this, I suggested this change because we're already adding a new vote ix for block_id so figured it would be easier to have 1 migration rather than 2.

However it seems like we're not in a rush for block_id so happy to wait until we've agreed on the APE SIMD first.

@wen-coding
Copy link

Should we collab on the SIMD first before getting too dug in on implementation details?

Sure, still working on the SIMD, but comments welcome: solana-foundation/solana-improvement-documents#165

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants