Re: RFC: KUSER_SHARED_DATA update patch to fix bug 29168

[Joey Yandle]

> BTW one more thing, this change will most likely break number of copy
> protection systems. Such as safedisk. They use user shared date times to
> estimate time it took for some kernel operations. And some of those time
> intervals are really tight.

I'm extremely confused by this statement.  Currently, some the
USER_SHARED_DATA values are written at process start, and some are not
written at all.  How can external code possibly rely on Wine's current
broken behavior?  Any code written for windows expects these values to
update every 15.6 ms.

If anything, I would expect updating these values to fix copy protection
schemes, not break them.