[SPARK-4029][Streaming] Update streaming driver to reliably save and recover received block metadata on driver failures

As part of the initiative of preventing data loss on driver failure, this JIRA tracks the sub task of modifying the streaming driver to reliably save received block metadata, and recover them on driver restart.

This was solved by introducing a `ReceivedBlockTracker` that takes all the responsibility of managing the metadata of received blocks (i.e. `ReceivedBlockInfo`, and any actions on them (e.g, allocating blocks to batches, etc.). All actions to block info get written out to a write ahead log (using `WriteAheadLogManager`). On recovery, all the actions are replaying to recreate the pre-failure state of the `ReceivedBlockTracker`, which include the batch-to-block allocations and the unallocated blocks. 

Furthermore, the `ReceiverInputDStream` was modified to create `WriteAheadLogBackedBlockRDD`s when file segment info is present in the `ReceivedBlockInfo`. After recovery of all the block info (through recovery `ReceivedBlockTracker`), the `WriteAheadLogBackedBlockRDD`s gets recreated with the recovered info, and jobs submitted. The data of the blocks gets pulled from the write ahead logs, thanks to the segment info present in the `ReceivedBlockInfo`.

This is still a WIP. Things that are missing here are.

- *End-to-end integration tests:* Unit tests that tests the driver recovery, by killing and restarting the streaming context, and verifying all the input data gets processed. This has been implemented but not included in this PR yet. A sneak peek of that DriverFailureSuite can be found in this PR (on my personal repo): https://github.com/tdas/spark/pull/25 I can either include it in this PR, or submit that as a separate PR after this gets in.

- *WAL cleanup:* Cleaning up the received data write ahead log, by calling `ReceivedBlockHandler.cleanupOldBlocks`. This is being worked on.
I guess there's an implicit contract that the user will only call `allocateBlocksToBatch()` once for a given batch time.  If we're being super-defensive against mis-use, I suppose we could add an assertion for this.