[PATCH] smb: Fix refcount leak for cifs_sb_tlink

[Steve French]

I agree that "callsites" is incorrect, it should be "calls" e.g. but
the others are very minor and I think the existing wording is fine for
the others

On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 11:25 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring at web.de> wrote:
>
> > Fix three refcount inconsistency issues related to `cifs_sb_tlink`.
>
> I suggest to omit this introduction.
>
>
> > Comments for `cifs_sb_tlink` state that `cifs_put_tlink()` needs to be
>
>                              ()?
>
>
> > called after successful calls to `cifs_sb_tlink`. Three callsites fail
>
>                                                           call sites?
>
>
> > to update refcount accordingly, leading to possible resource leaks.
>
> * Do we prefer the term “reference count”?
>
> * Is the word “possible” really relevant here?
>   (Would you find corresponding case distinctions more helpful?)
>
> * How do you think about to increase the application of scope-based resource management?
>
>
> Regards,
> Markus



-- 
Thanks,

Steve