We'll need to verify that there's neither a hashed nor in-lookup
dentry with desired parent/name before adding to in-lookup set.

One possible solution would be to hold the parent's ->d_lock through
both checks, but while the in-lookup set is relatively small at any
time, dcache is not.  And holding the parent's ->d_lock through
something like __d_lookup_rcu() would suck too badly.

So we leave the parent's ->d_lock alone, which means that we watch
out for the following scenario:
	* we verify that there's no hashed match
	* existing in-lookup match gets hashed by another process
	* we verify that there's no in-lookup matches and decide
that everything's fine.

Solution: per-directory kinda-sorta seqlock, bumped around the times
we hash something that used to be in-lookup or move (and hash)
something in place of in-lookup.  Then the above would turn into
	* read the counter
	* do dcache lookup
	* if no matches found, check for in-lookup matches
	* if there had been none of those either, check if the
counter has changed; repeat if it has.

The "kinda-sorta" part is due to the fact that we don't have much spare
space in inode.  There is a spare word (shared with i_bdev/i_cdev/i_pipe),
so the counter part is not a problem, but spinlock is a different story.

We could use the parent's ->d_lock, and it would be less painful in
terms of contention, for __d_add() it would be rather inconvenient to
grab; we could do that (using lock_parent()), but...

Fortunately, we can get serialization on the counter itself, and it
might be a good idea in general; we can use cmpxchg() in a loop to
get from even to odd and smp_store_release() from odd to even.

This commit adds the counter and updating logics; the readers will be
added in the next commit.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>