Re: About final cfg.h (config layer 0 discussion)

    Hi, Arpi!

Sometime (on Saturday, May 24 at 15:28) I've received something...

>> 1. Why did you dropped CONF_TYPE_SUBCONFIG ? I've just noticed that. It's
>>   because all such options are modules parameters and you want to parse
>>   they by different way?
>> 2. Do you still have something to argue about CONF_TYPE_LIST option type?
>> 3. Will we change CONF_NOGUI to CONF_NOUI ?
>> 4. Let's change unsigned short type, version to unsigned short version,
>>   type in module_info_t definition to have compatibility forever. :)
>..

>i'm almost ready with the implementation, will be released soon (today?)
>so be patient, you'll get all these answered.

    So you took all my notices already? Great. :)

>> chain and to somewhere inside chain but how about adding filter at the
>> end of chain? May be better is something like:

>insert at teh end? why? it's the leaf filter always

    If you want add filter at end of list from [G]UI or it may be also
useful for '-vf' implementation (don't go to end of list and add filters
in reverse order but just add to end of chain one by one). In both of
these cases it will be better than use some tricks. Anyway all difference
is in filling fields ->prev and ->next of vf_instance_t by function
vf_insert_filter(). :)

    With best wishes.
    Andriy.