On 23.08.22 23:38, Richard Henderson wrote: > First, as pointed out by David; second by inspection. > > I really wish there were a better way to structure this, > but alas, I don't see any alternatives that aren't just > different but similar amounts of ugly. >
The only feasible way would be having a arch-specific callback from inside the probe code that would, similarly to tlb_fill code for !USER store these values in the cpu environment -- then we could similarly just look them up after the probe access. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
