On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 00:51 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > At Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:01:51 -0500, > "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This sounds like you intend to have all network buffers owned by the > > network subsystem. If so, you have re-invented denial of service. > > > > Could you clarify whether this is the case? > > I don't think so. The effect of the proposal is intended to be the > following: Pages can be "tagged" so that they can be made opaque by > certain designated (and thus authorized) subsystems only. Ownership > of the resource remains within the party who did the tagging. I think > that this description catches the main idea.
This begins to smell like dead fish. What this proposal is saying is: We think that opaque pages are bad for some reason, but we can't find a clean way to get rid of them and do effective resource accounting, so we are restricting their use to the Hurd-NG gods. How is this position any different from RIAA restricting my use of music? -- Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph.D. Managing Director The EROS Group, LLC +1 443 927 1719 x5100 _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list L4-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
