From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mats Petersson <mats.petersson@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: xen with huffman coding
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:34:48 +0000
Message-ID: <50CB5528.2020203@citrix.com>
References: <CCF103FE.55C40%keir@xen.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CCF103FE.55C40%keir@xen.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 14/12/12 16:27, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 14/12/2012 14:49, "Mats Petersson" <mats.petersson@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> For code and typical data, I'm not at all convinced that huffman
>> encoding (which is based on run-lengths) is the best method.
> Actually Huffman encoding is not a run-length scheme.
Ah, I'm confusing it with ccitt (or whatever it is that fax-machines 
use), which uses a fixed Huffman tree to encode a set of run lengths of 
black/white pixels.

Either way, looking at more than one compression mechanism may have some 
value.

--
Mats
>
>   -- Keir
>
>
>
>