--- a/Journal/Paper.thy	Wed Sep 09 11:24:19 2015 +0100
+++ b/Journal/Paper.thy	Sun Oct 04 23:02:57 2015 +0100
@@ -170,10 +170,15 @@
   computing the priority to be restored solely from this log is  not explained in
   \cite{Liu00} but left as an ``{\it excercise}'' to the reader.
   Of course, a correct version of PIP does not need to maintain
-  this (potentially expensive) data structure at all. 
+  this (potentially expensive) data structure at all. Surprisingly
+  also the widely read and frequently updated textbook \cite{Silberschatz13} gives
+  the wrong specification. For example on Page 254 the
+  authors write: ``{\it Upon releasing the lock, the [low-priority] thread
+  will revert to its original priority.}'' The same error is also repeated
+  later in this textbook.
 
   
-  While \cite{Laplante11,Liu00,book,Sha90} are the only formal publications we have 
+  While \cite{Laplante11,Liu00,book,Sha90,Silberschatz13} are the only formal publications we have 
   found that specify the incorrect behaviour, it seems also many
   informal descriptions of PIP overlook the possibility that another
   high-priority might wait for a low-priority process to finish.