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 common condition)?
>
> + if (CheckingRemoteServersTimeoutPending)
+1. Will fix.
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
