Under certain situations, when doing an incremental send, we can end up
not freeing orphan_dir_info structures as soon as they are no longer
needed. Instead we end up freeing them only after finishing the send
stream, which causes a warning to be emitted:

[282735.229200] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[282735.229968] WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 10588 at fs/btrfs/send.c:6298 btrfs_ioctl_send+0xe2f/0xe51 [btrfs]
[282735.231282] Modules linked in: btrfs crc32c_generic xor raid6_pq acpi_cpufreq tpm_tis ppdev tpm parport_pc psmouse parport sg pcspkr i2c_piix4 i2c_core evdev processor serio_raw button loop autofs4 ext4 crc16 jbd2 mbcache sr_mod cdrom sd_mod ata_generic virtio_scsi ata_piix libata virtio_pci virtio_ring virtio e1000 scsi_mod floppy [last unloaded: btrfs]
[282735.237130] CPU: 9 PID: 10588 Comm: btrfs Tainted: G        W       4.6.0-rc7-btrfs-next-31+ #1
[282735.239309] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS by qemu-project.org 04/01/2014
[282735.240160]  0000000000000000 ffff880224273ca8 ffffffff8126b42c 0000000000000000
[282735.240160]  0000000000000000 ffff880224273ce8 ffffffff81052b14 0000189a24273ac8
[282735.240160]  ffff8802210c9800 0000000000000000 0000000000000001 0000000000000000
[282735.240160] Call Trace:
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff8126b42c>] dump_stack+0x67/0x90
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff81052b14>] __warn+0xc2/0xdd
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff81052beb>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1d/0x1f
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffffa03c99d5>] btrfs_ioctl_send+0xe2f/0xe51 [btrfs]
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffffa0398358>] btrfs_ioctl+0x14f/0x1f81 [btrfs]
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff8108e456>] ? arch_local_irq_save+0x9/0xc
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff8118da05>] vfs_ioctl+0x18/0x34
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff8118e00c>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x550/0x5be
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff81196f0c>] ? __fget+0x6b/0x77
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff81196fa1>] ? __fget_light+0x62/0x71
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff8118e0d1>] SyS_ioctl+0x57/0x79
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff8149e025>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x18/0xa8
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff81100c6b>] ? time_hardirqs_off+0x9/0x14
[282735.240160]  [<ffffffff8108e87d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x1f/0xaa
[282735.256343] ---[ end trace a4539270c8056f93 ]---

Consider the following example:

  Parent snapshot:

  .                                                             (ino 256)
  |--- a/                                                       (ino 257)
  |    |--- c/                                                  (ino 260)
  |
  |--- del/                                                     (ino 259)
        |--- tmp/                                               (ino 258)
        |--- x/                                                 (ino 261)
        |--- y/                                                 (ino 262)

  Send snapshot:

  .                                                             (ino 256)
  |--- a/                                                       (ino 257)
  |    |--- x/                                                  (ino 261)
  |    |--- y/                                                  (ino 262)
  |
  |--- c/                                                       (ino 260)
       |--- tmp/                                                (ino 258)

1) When processing inode 258, we end up delaying its rename operation
   because it has an ancestor (in the send snapshot) that has a higher
   inode number (inode 260) which was also renamed in the send snapshot,
   therefore we delay the rename of inode 258 so that it happens after
   inode 260 is renamed;

2) When processing inode 259, we end up delaying its deletion (rmdir
   operation) because it has a child inode (258) that has its rename
   operation delayed. At this point we allocate an orphan_dir_info
   structure and tag inode 258 so that we later attempt to see if we
   can delete (rmdir) inode 259 once inode 258 is renamed;

3) When we process inode 260, after renaming it we finally do the rename
   operation for inode 258. Once we issue the rename operation for inode
   258 we notice that this inode was tagged so that we attempt to see
   if at this point we can delete (rmdir) inode 259. But at this point
   we can not still delete inode 259 because it has 2 children, inodes
   261 and 262, that were not yet processed and therefore not yet
   moved (renamed) away from inode 259. We end up not freeing the
   orphan_dir_info structure allocated in step 2;

4) We process inodes 261 and 262, and once we move/rename inode 262
   we issue the rmdir operation for inode 260;

5) We finish the send stream and notice that red black tree that
   contains orphan_dir_info structures is not empty, so we emit
   a warning and then free any orphan_dir_structures left.

So fix this by freeing an orphan_dir_info structure once we try to
apply a pending rename operation if we can not delete yet the tagged
directory.

A test case for fstests follows soon.
Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
[Modified changelog to be more detailed and easier to understand]