> how sure are we that 1 holds? couldn't there be other, > legitimate and transient errors? could a user-delivered > note sneak in and confuse the issue?
no. at least not if the kernel is working properly. that's why i said devmnt should enforce the assumption. it's at most a couple lines of extra code, whereas the diff you posted was quite a bit longer. this is a simplifying assumption in the code, so called because it simplifies the code. if you throw away the assumption, you throw away the simplicity, and not just here. rather than throw away the simplicity, work to understand why the assumption is being violated (in 9vx it is the bogus spelling of "interrupted") and fix the violation instead. russ
