Code that does this:

	if (!(d_unhashed(tmp) && tmp->d_inode)) {
		...
		simple_unlink(parent->d_inode, tmp);
	}

is broken because:

	!(d_unhashed(tmp) && tmp->d_inode)

is equivalent to:

	!d_unhashed(tmp) || !tmp->d_inode

so it is possible to get into simple_unlink() with tmp->d_inode == NULL.

simple_unlink(), however, assumes tmp->d_inode cannot be NULL.

I think that what was meant is this:

	!d_unhashed(tmp) && tmp->d_inode

and that the logical-not operator or the final close-bracket was misplaced.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@pathscale.com>
cc: Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>