> OK, but it needs some changes.
> 
> - is_valid_hugepage_range() will not compile.  `addrp' vs `addr'
> 
> - We should not pass in a flag variable which alters a 
> function's behaviour
>   in this manner.  Especially when it has the wonderful name 
> "flag", and no
>   supporting commentary!
> 
>   Please split this into two separate (and documented) functions.


Attached is the updated patch based on your comments.  

> 
> - A name like "is_valid_hugepage_range" implies that this function is
>   purely a predicate.  Yet it is capable of altering part of 
> the caller's
>   environment.  Can we have a more appropriate name?
> 
> - I've been trying to keep ia64/sparc64/x86_64 as uptodate as I can
>   throughout this.  I think we can safely copy the ia32 
> implementation over
>   into there as well, can't we?

For ia64, there is a separate kernel patch that David Mosberger
maintains.  Linus's tree won't work as is on ia64. Not sure about
x86_64/sparc64.

> 
>   If there's any doubt then probably it's best to just leave 
> the symbol
>   undefined, let the arch maintainers curse us ;)

> 
> Are you working against Linus's current tree?  A lot has 
> changed in there. 
> I'd like to hear if hugetlbfs is working correctly in a 
> non-ia32 kernel.

Yeah, I am working on Linus's 2.5.59 tree. Will download your mm9 to get
my tree updated.  Is there any other patch that you want me to apply
before sending you any more updates.

As far as non-ia32 kernel is concerned, hugetlbfs on ia64 should be
working fine. Though I've not yet tried the 2.5.59 on ia64. 2.5.59 ia64
patch that David maintains has the same level of hugetlb support as i386
tree. 


>