Samsung SCH-U820 (VZ) File System Problem | developer.brewmp.com Samsung SCH-U820 (VZ) File System Problem | developer.brewmp.com

Developer

Samsung SCH-U820 (VZ) File System Problem

Hi All,

I'm having a really strange problem on the U-820. I've opened a ticket with Qualcomm but have not heard back. Maybe someone on this list has run into the same issue.

I have two apps. Both apps create files in their respective mod directories. Both apps are compiled with SDK 3.1.5 and work on the U-820, which is BMP 1.0.1.

App #1 cannot create new files. However, if I were to edit the MIF file with the MIF Editor and set the "EFS Restriction" max values, then it is able to create files.

App #2 can create new files with empty values in the "EFS Restriction" MIF fields.

When App #1 fails to create files, the error is EFSFULL. However, the file system is not full, as just setting the EFS Restrictions values in the MIF file allows the app to create files. And App #2 can create files just fine.

I call IFILEMGR_GetFileUseInfo() in both apps, with these results:

App #1, no EFS Restrictions, not able to create files:
wMaxFiles: 0
wFilesUsed: 4 (install of MOD, BAR, SIG, and TXT)
dwMaxSpace: 0
dwSpaceUsed: 47787

App #1, with EFS Restrictions, able to create files:
wMaxFiles: 65535 (this is the value set in the MIF)
wFilesUsed: 8 (4 new files created by the app)
dwMaxSpace: 999999999 (this is the value set in the MIF)
dwSpaceUsed: 50792

App #2, no EFS Restrictions, able to create files:
wMaxFiles: 65535
wFilesUsed: 0
dwMaxSpace: 4,294,967,295
dwSpaceUsed: 0

For App #1, with no EFS Restrictions set, BREW interprets it as "0". While for App #2, with no EFS Restrictions set, BREW interprets it as "no need to check".

Both apps ran successfully on BREW 3 and BREW 4 devices with a blank EFS Restrictions.

The really interesting thing is that when I first try to port to this phone a few weeks ago, App #2 requires EFS Restrictions in the MIF, while App #1 did not. I figured it was just some difference between the two apps and setting the EFS Restrictions for App #2 solved the problem. And now, for some reason, it is the opposite, with App #1 requiring EFS Restrictions but not App #2. So the situation is more complicated, and I'd really like to get to the bottom of it.