The lock name comparison had a typo where it didn't compare the second
fields between the two names. Only inode index items used the second
field. This bug could cause lock matching when the names don't match
and trigger lock coverage warnings.
While we're in there don't rely so heavily on readers knowing the
relative precedence of subtraction and (magical gcc empty) ternary
operators.
Signed-off-by: Zach Brown <zab@versity.com>