Paul Brook wrote:
>> I really see no tangible objection to Jan's patches.  They don't impact
>> any other code.  They don't inhibit flexibility in the infrastructure.
>> You might consider it to be a "hack" but so what.  QEMU is filled with
>> hacks.  It would be useless without them because there would be very
>> little code.
> 
> I object strongly to anything that makes qemu_irq a message passing API.
> if you want message passing then you should not be using qemu_irq.

Blueswirl objected to the straightforward return-value approach I first
posted. You seems to be more open towards this, right? Still looks like
I cannot make you both happy at the same time. So what to do?

Jan