If a directory's reference ends up being orphanized, because the inode
currently being processed has a new path that matches that directory's
path, make sure we evict the name of the directory from the name cache.
This is because there might be descendent inodes (either directories or
regular files) that will be orphanized later too, and therefore the
orphan name of the ancestor must be used, otherwise we send issue rename
operations with a wrong path in the send stream.

Reproducer:

  $ mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdb
  $ mount /dev/sdb /mnt

  $ mkdir -p /mnt/data/n1/n2/p1/p2
  $ mkdir /mnt/data/n4
  $ mkdir -p /mnt/data/p1/p2

  $ btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/snap1

  $ mv /mnt/data/p1/p2 /mnt/data
  $ mv /mnt/data/n1/n2/p1/p2 /mnt/data/p1
  $ mv /mnt/data/p2 /mnt/data/n1/n2/p1
  $ mv /mnt/data/n1/n2 /mnt/data/p1
  $ mv /mnt/data/p1 /mnt/data/n4
  $ mv /mnt/data/n4/p1/n2/p1 /mnt/data

  $ btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/snap2

  $ btrfs send /mnt/snap1 -f /tmp/1.send
  $ btrfs send -p /mnt/snap1 /mnt/snap2 -f /tmp/2.send

  $ mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sdc
  $ mount /dev/sdc /mnt2
  $ btrfs receive /mnt2 -f /tmp/1.send
  $ btrfs receive /mnt2 -f /tmp/2.send
  ERROR: rename data/p1/p2 -> data/n4/p1/p2 failed. no such file or directory

Directories data/p1 (inode 263) and data/p1/p2 (inode 264) in the parent
snapshot are both orphanized during the incremental send, and as soon as
data/p1 is orphanized, we must make sure that when orphanizing data/p1/p2
we use a source path of o263-6-o/p2 for the rename operation instead of
the old path data/p1/p2 (the one before the orphanization of inode 263).

A test case for xfstests follows soon.
Reported-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>