Re: [PATCH] smb: Fix refcount leak for cifs_sb_tlink

[Markus Elfring]

> 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