[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY
From: |
Espen Skoglund |
Subject: |
Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:29:59 +0200 |
[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
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, (continued)
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/19
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Espen Skoglund, 2005/10/19
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/19
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Espen Skoglund, 2005/10/19
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/19
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/19
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/20
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/19
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/10/19
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/20
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY,
Espen Skoglund <=
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/20
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/10/20
- Re: Why COPY != SIMULATED COPY, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/20
- Why kernel REVOCABLE COPY is difficult, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/09
- Re: Why kernel REVOCABLE COPY is difficult, olafBuddenhagen, 2005/10/10
- Re: Why kernel REVOCABLE COPY is difficult, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/10
- space banks and DMA, Neal H. Walfield, 2005/10/13
- Re: space banks and DMA, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/13
- DMA vs. Persistence, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/13
- General driver DMA (in EROS), Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/10/13