Ian Kent <ik...@redhat.com> wrote: > So far only David commented about using ENOENT rather than EREMOTE. > > I prefer ENOENT for this case myself and he didn't object when I > explained why, David, any concerns?
Not really - it just seems EREMOTE is a better fit since there is something there, we're just not allowed to follow it. This is different to a dangling symlink IMO. David
