AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090507140154.50f69b0f@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:mail.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<rendell.fong@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB52AC8BC1D64@exch1.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:02:08 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Rendell Fong <rendell.fong@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: wka memory usage
Message-ID: <20090507140208.7c0e0947@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB52AC8BC1D64@exch1.onstor.net>
References: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB52AC8BC1D64@exch1.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well, it was worth a shot anyway.  I think.

Meanwhile, I'm working on getting this set up on the Linux kernel side
of things.  I should know more later this afternoon.  How hard/bad
would it be if the address (bottom part) was 0xff00000 ?

Cheers,

a


On Thu, 7 May 2009 12:13:01 -0700 Rendell Fong
<rendell.fong@onstor.com> wrote:

> I guess I'll have to figure it out myself.
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Maxim Kozlovsky
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:01 AM
> To: Rendell Fong
> Cc: Andy Sharp
> Subject: RE: wka memory usage
> 
> No.
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Rendell Fong
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:59 AM
> To: Maxim Kozlovsky
> Cc: Andy Sharp
> Subject: wka memory usage
> 
> Hi Max,
> 
> In Cougar, the wka memory area starting at 0x73000000 is 1M bytes in
> size. Do you know how much of it is actually used?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rendell
> 
