Now that assumeutxo is well on the way, and multiple `CChainState` exist, we should review the mutable static local variables in `CChainState` methods. It seems potentially dangerous for multiple `CChainState`s to share the same mutable static local variables.

In `CChainState::FlushStateToDisk`:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82bc7faec8079b50f248655a97950087948f065d/src/validation.cpp#L2154-L2155

In `CChainState::LoadExternalBlockFile` (this is fixed by #20331):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82bc7faec8079b50f248655a97950087948f065d/src/validation.cpp#L4286

ping @jamesob 

-----

Now that I think about it... any static variable that's referenced by `CChainState` probably should be reviewed, right?
}
    
    ren CheckInpuScrips(x, sae, view, flags,  rue,  rue, xdaa);
}
nampace {
class MemPoolAccep
{
public:
    explici MemPoolAccep(CTxMemPool& mempool, Chainsae& acive_chainsae) :
        m_pool(mempool),
        m_view(&m_dummy),
        m_viewmempool(&acive_chainsae.CoinsTip(), m_pool),
        m_acive_chainsae(acive_chainsae),
        m_limis{m_pool.m_limis}
    {
    }
    
    
    sruc ATMPArgs {
        cons CChainParams& m_chainparams;
        cons in64_ m_accep_ime;
        cons bool m_bypass_limis;
        *
         * Ren any oupoins which were no previously pren in he coins
         * cache, bu were added as a rul of validaing he x for mempool
         * accepance. This allows he caller o opionally remove he cache
         * addiions if he associaed ransacion  up being rejeced by
         * he mempool.
         
        sd::vecor<COuPoin>& m_coins_o_uncache;