From b7c3b18c4f3d2ae56a618813c0cae168d56c96a5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: vcart <112975047+wayzeek@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:19:38 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] docs(block): correct deposit DA-size tracking comment

The module doc claimed deposit DA sizes are still accumulated into the block
DA usage counters for monitoring, but post_execution_update_raw skips deposits
(block_da_size_used only accumulates non-deposit txs, per its own test). The
spec allows tracking as optional (RFC-2119 MAY); the executor opts out. Update
the comment to match the implementation and spec.
---
 crates/mega-evm/src/block/limit.rs | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/crates/mega-evm/src/block/limit.rs b/crates/mega-evm/src/block/limit.rs
index c9139577..cb701c3f 100644
--- a/crates/mega-evm/src/block/limit.rs
+++ b/crates/mega-evm/src/block/limit.rs
@@ -107,8 +107,9 @@
 //!   block-level Data Availability size limit checks during pre-execution validation
 //! - **Rationale**: Deposit transactions are trustless L1→L2 messages that cannot be censored. They
 //!   must be included in blocks regardless of their DA size to maintain bridge integrity
-//! - **Tracking**: While exempt from limit checks, deposit DA sizes are still tracked and
-//!   accumulated in block DA usage counters for monitoring purposes
+//! - **Tracking**: Deposit DA sizes are not accumulated into the block DA usage counter
+//!   (`block_da_size_used`). The spec permits tracking them for monitoring (RFC-2119 MAY), but the
+//!   executor opts out, so the counter reflects only non-deposit transactions.
 //! - **Other Limits**: Deposit transactions are still subject to all other limits (gas, tx size,
 //!   compute gas, data size, KV updates)
 //!