Re: wineboot: Pass non-zero timeouts to SendMessageTimeout, otherwise the call won't timeout.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Robert Shearman  writes:
> The original code seems to have been designed to not wait at all, but
> this got changed by a user32 commit that made a timeout of zero behave
> as INFINITE.

I don't think so, AFAICT it has always been supposed to wait (except
with the SMTO_ABORTIFHUNG flag).
> So which should it be - no timeout or timeout followed by a dialog to
> carry on waiting or kill the process?

Either is OK, though a timeout followed by a dialog is better. What's
not OK is a timeout and then a kill while the user might be trying to
save the file.