RE: [Proposal] Add foreign-server health checks infrastructure

Dear Zhihong,

Thank you for giving comments! I'll post new patches later.

> +#define HOLD_CHECKING_REMOTE_SERVERS_INTERRUPTS()  (CheckingRemoteServersHoldoffCount++)
>
> The macro contains only one operation. Can the macro be removed (with `CheckingRemoteServersHoldoffCount++` inlined)
?

Hmm, these HOLD/RESUME macros are followed HOLD_INTERRUPUST() and HOLD_CANCEL_INTERRUPTS():

```
#define HOLD_INTERRUPTS()  (InterruptHoldoffCount++)

#define RESUME_INTERRUPTS() \
do { \
        Assert(InterruptHoldoffCount > 0); \
        InterruptHoldoffCount--; \
} while(0)

#define HOLD_CANCEL_INTERRUPTS()  (QueryCancelHoldoffCount++)

#define RESUME_CANCEL_INTERRUPTS() \
do { \
        Assert(QueryCancelHoldoffCount > 0); \
        QueryCancelHoldoffCount--; \
} while(0)

#define START_CRIT_SECTION()  (CritSectionCount++)

#define END_CRIT_SECTION() \
do { \
        Assert(CritSectionCount > 0); \
        CritSectionCount--; \
} while(0)
```

So I want to keep the current style. Could you tell me if you have any other reasons?

> +   if (CheckingRemoteServersTimeoutPending && CheckingRemoteServersHoldoffCount != 0)
> +   {
> +       /*
> +        * Skip checking foreign servers while reading messages.
> +        */
> +       InterruptPending = true;
> +   }
> +   else if (CheckingRemoteServersTimeoutPending)
>
> Would the code be more readable if the above two if blocks be moved inside one enclosing if block (factoring the
commoncondition)? 
>
> +   if (CheckingRemoteServersTimeoutPending)

+1. Will fix.

Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED