On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 22:35 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > There has been other discussions about "selective revocation" in > > UNMAP; not to be confused with "selective revocation" as discussed > > above. > > Right, there is that, too. We are in the dangerous zone of overloaded > terminology here.
Yes. This term was not my invention. It is a very old term in the literature. If the L4 community bothered to read the relevant literature, these unnecessary term collisions would occur less frequently. In this case, it is L4 that must change, and the term "filtered revocation" would be more informally descriptive and avoid term collision. It would also be nice if they *cited* the relevant literature occasionally... shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
