[Jonathan S Shapiro]
> 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...
Geeez! Give us a break will you. Rants like this just make people
not want to bother taking part in the discussions.
Yes, "filtered revocation" is a better name for it. I only mentioned
"selective revocation" because I believe we used that term during
some discussions.
Lesson learned: It's better to just shut the f*ck up and do something
useful instead of wasting your time only to receive elitist abuses.
eSk
_______________________________________________
L4-hurd mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
